2018-06-04

Endangered Whales[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am feeling a little homesick, being far from my home on Gabriola Island, but when I think about the number of people who will send the word out on Facebook, especially when Margy lets everybody know that there are orca whales at Orlebar Point, I feel a bit better.
 Masses of people stand on the shorelines of the Salish Sea and watch as these amazing whales go by so close to the shoreline. Mudge Islanders post videos all the time of orcas going through Dodd Narrows, which has an extremely strong current of nine knots. These animals have the intuition to know when the current has changed, but they are also determined to push through it. It is phenomenal. We are privileged as B.C. coastal people to live so close to these amazing animals.
A constituent of mine, Charles Thirkill, sent me a note on this, saying, “Orcas are the last surviving species of the whales that once roamed the Strait of Georgia. In 1907, a whaling station was set up in Pipers Lagoon. They caught 97 whales in the first year, and by 1911, there were none left, so they packed up the gear and took it to Graham Island Haida Gwaii. Whaling in the area continued till 1967”—the year after I was born—“and spotter planes were used to locate the prey for the boats. The whales were hunted for their oil. Now ain't that ironic-like?”
He finishes by saying, “We are just beginning to see whales return to the Strait, and it would be sad if they were killed by an oil spill or tanker propeller blades.” 
They are imperiled indeed. Chinook salmon numbers have dropped to the point that southern resident orcas are starving. They are miscarrying. 
The Raincoast Conservation Foundation says, “69 per cent of pregnancies in the last decade have failed, and what should be healthy animals are being lost to malnutrition and other human-caused mortality.”
Do we need to take action on whales? Yes, we do. 
Add to this the harm from shipping traffic in the Salish Sea. A few weeks ago, the Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages Society, GAFA, hosted a screening of the film Sonic Sea. It was devastating. I had no idea the impact of shipping noise on whales' ability to communicate with each other, to stay together as a pod, to mate, to keep united with their calves, and to be able to echolocate to find the fish they need to eat. Seismic testing for oil and gas and sonar from navy ships are thought to be responsible for some of the mass beachings of whales, an unexplained phenomenon up to this point. 
This movie was made by the National Resources Defense Council and can be seen at www.sonicsea.org. I encourage anybody who is in a decision-making position or who is reliant on the sea, as we all are, to watch that movie. It changed my view.
The whales are in trouble already. Misty MacDuffee of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation was quoted in The Guardian in November 2016, saying, “You can visibly actually see the ribs on some of these whales.” They are in trouble. 
Add to that a sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic in the Salish Sea. After the Harper Conservatives gutted and undermined the legislation, the National Energy Board heard evidence that deafening noise from increased tanker traffic in the Salish Sea would place orcas at a high risk of population decline. Increased noise was expected to decrease the ability of killer whales to communicate, to acquire food, and to survive. This would prevent the population from growing and increase its likelihood of extinction. 
In its report, the NEB states that the operation of marine vessels related to the pipeline project would likely result in significant adverse effects to the southern resident killer whale and to indigenous cultural uses associated with this marine mammal.
This is another element of the flawed review by the National Energy Board. It made an eleventh-hour decision to arbitrarily truncate the Trans Mountain project at tidewater in Burnaby, the end of the pipeline, inexplicably excluding impacts to killer whales from the environmental assessment. As a result of the Prime Minister having broken his promise to redo the review on the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Liberal government approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline knowing that the project could wipe out these iconic orcas. 
They are not just iconic to us. They are a SARA-listed species. They have been listed as endangered, and the federal law on this is extremely clear. It is the federal government's responsibility to protect the habitat and the animal. Extinctions are not allowed legally to happen under a government's watch, and yet the Liberals approved this pipeline, knowing it was the one impact identified by the National Energy Board as being inevitable and irremediable. That is a quote from the report. Still, the Prime Minister broke his word and approved the pipeline.
The federal government is being taken to court on this. One of the many court cases that remain against the Kinder Morgan pipeline is about the violation of Canada's Species at Risk Act. Ecojustice lawyers, on behalf of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and Living Oceans Society, contend that the federal government violated the law when it relied on the National Energy Board report. They say the NEB used an overly narrow interpretation of the law to avoid addressing the harm caused to endangered southern resident killer whales and their critical habitat. Yet the Liberals bought the pipeline. 
The Liberals just keep digging deeper on the violation of their most serious responsibilities to whales and to the Salish Sea. They say they make their decisions based on science and evidence. The science and evidence say that the impacts on orcas are irremediable. They say that all cabinet decisions go through a sustainability screen, yet they say, “The pipeline will be built.” Now the Prime Minister is going to be fighting first nations and science in court as the defendant. 
There is another failure of the government to act and protect the southern resident killer whales. They were designated as endangered over a decade ago, yet neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have produced the recovery strategy required by law. The Georgia Strait Alliance, which is in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, and many non-governmental organizations have been pleading for an action plan, and so have many constituents in my riding. I have had hundreds, probably 300 emails on exactly this narrow point, that the emergency order the State of Washington has put in place needs to be enacted by our government. Those from Colleen Alexander and Kay Morisset are both examples of very powerful letters calling for an emergency order, and saying again that time is running out on this. 
Just a couple of weeks ago, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans curtailed the chinook fishery to spare salmon for the orcas. That is a good move. I really wish it had been done two and a half years ago, as soon as the Liberals took power, because that would have saved some orca calves. I also hear chinook fishermen ask why they are the ones taking the hit. They find it hypocritical that the government has approved and in fact invested in a 50-year-old bitumen pipeline that will threaten the whales in the Salish Sea, yet it is the chinook fishermen who are taking the hit by having to cut back. 
I am going to vote yes to Motion No. 154, which we are debating today, because I love whales, and the more study we have the better. The more we can be a voice for these unique and iconic mammals that have no voice in this Parliament, and the more we can talk about them, the better. 
Overall, the situation is critical. This is an emergency, and real actions can be taken right now, not a future strategy or study. Action is needed now to prevent extinction. A Hill Times headline just a couple of months ago stated, “Research and technology won't feed starving southern resident orcas”, yet the motion before us is to study, not to act. To me, it feels like too little, too late, given the emergency orcas face.
 The government amendment to the member's motion that is before us pushes the timeline further back and specifically says to find a balance between competing claims. I do not accept that. Our responsibility is to protect the species and the habitat. We can take input, of course, from those who would be most affected, but it is not a trade-off we are looking for the government to make. I urge the government and all parliamentarians to please act now to protect the southern resident orca whale. 
Ms. Gudie Hutchings (Long Range Mountains, Lib.):  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for allowing me to share her time and speak to this important motion.
 I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her comments on the whales in her part of the country.
As members know, I am from the other part of this magnificent country. I am a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Our province has had a history with the fishery because of our coastline. We are a people of the sea. Many folks look at a map and ask me why hundreds of small rural communities are spread along the coast. It is because of the sea, the fishery, and our connection to it. It has been the backbone of our economy for years and is still a very important way of life that many people are proud to have. However, we have seen the fishery change over the years. We are going from quantity to quality in some species. Other species are being impacted by environment, habitat, predation, food sources, and elements at sea, and it is on this that I would like to speak today.
 It is important to note that while historically the presence of the North American right whale has been a rare occurrence off the shores of the Long Range Mountains, this past year four right whale carcasses washed up on the shoreline of my riding. The presence of these carcasses in our waters goes to demonstrate the changing patterns of these marine creatures. It is a clear indication that something is changing, and we have to do our best to reverse it. 
It is absolutely critical that we take more action to help save these whale populations. This goal is a feasible one. By simply reducing vessel speed from 12 knots to 10 knots, we can reduce the risk of a ship strike by 30%. 
Since the deaths of the whales began coming to light this past year, both the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Transport have been working to implement measures to preserve the population of the endangered North American right whale. Even this past weekend, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced that it would be temporarily closing various fishing areas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence due to right whale sightings in the area. 
These simple reactionary decisions are important to ensure the protection of these mammals. However, we have to do more. As important as these simple changes are to help preserve our oceans, more information and collaboration are needed if we hope to improve the whale population in the long term. 
 As I mentioned, the constituents in my riding of the Long Range Mountains rely heavily on the oceans and the fishery. With over 1,200 kilometres of coastline in my riding, a healthy marine ecosystem is of the utmost importance, and whales are one of the key factors in enhancing and maintaining that ecosystem.
 In 2017, we were struck by 17 deaths of North American right whales in Atlantic Canada. This number is alarming, especially when we consider that the total global population of this species is less than 450. With mortality rates as they currently are, this species is at risk of becoming extinct within 25 years. Although monitoring the lifespan of the right whale has proven difficult for scientists, studies have suggested that these mammals can live for at least 75 years. However, of the whales that were found dead last year, at least five of them were determined to be under the age of 20. Necropsies done on these whales have suggested that their deaths were not from natural causes, but rather the result of some level of human intervention.
 The North American right whale has been listed as endangered since 2005. The species is especially at risk due to human activity, as they tend to live near the populated coast of North America. Some of the greatest risks to the species include vessel collision, entanglement in fishing gear, disturbance from vessels, and acoustic disturbances.
Food supply for the larger animals in the marine ecosystem has been shifting as well. Due to the decline of food stocks, species such as whales have had to alter their migratory paths to find a sufficient supply. This has resulted in some species, such as the North American right whale, becoming more susceptible to human-induced mortality. With these creatures shifting more and more into areas that are frequently used by humans, the risk of them coming into contact with boats and fishing gear increases dramatically.
In the Long Range Mountains, we know first-hand the importance of maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem. Due to neglect of the preservation of cod and salmon for decades, we are now in a position where everything we do in terms of preservation is reactionary. This study on the situation of endangered whales would be a proactive move toward protecting the members of the species that are left, and would work toward rebuilding the population for the generations to come.
Throughout history, the North American right whale has demonstrated an ability to come back and revive, even when its population has been critically low. However, this time it is different. This time, the critical threat to these species comes from human intervention. This time, it is critically important that humans work to prevent further deaths of the whales and take into consideration their changing patterns. 
To be effective in this goal, we must hear from experts in the field, as well as individuals in the industry, the people on the ground and on the waters who will be directly affected by any changes that are implemented. We must work hard with stakeholders and experts to ensure that while we move towards improving and protecting our oceans and whales, we also minimize disruption to the industry.
We also must be aware that a group of U.S. senators have suggested that Canadian seafood should be banned from U.S. markets if Canadian standards are found to be less protective of whales than the U.S. fisheries. This committee study, which will come as a result of this motion, will allow us to ensure that all interests are balanced while we work towards preserving the marine ecosystem. 
Time is of the essence when it comes to this issue. We cannot continue to lose members of this species and act later. We have a chance to be proactive and not reactive, and that is exactly what this study will do.
Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Long Range Mountains, as well as our colleague who put forth this motion, Motion No. 154, the member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest.
 Motion No. 154 calls for the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans to undertake a study of the situation of endangered whales. I live in a landlocked area, but being from the west coast, we have beautiful vistas and an incredible whale habitat. It is a beautiful area. As our hon. colleague from the NDP mentioned, we have some concerns with the whale population in and around the southern area of the Pacific coast, especially the southern right whale population.
This motion asks the committee to identify the steps that could be taken to continue the efforts to protect and help the recovery of the narwhal, the beluga, and the southern resident killer whales off the coast of British Columbia. It also asks to “identify immediate and longer term improvements limiting the impact of human activities on each of these species and, by so doing, add to recovery efforts and to recommendations for new or enhanced actions”. Motion No. 154 goes further. It asks the committee “to call expert witnesses on each of the species...those who might be impacted by any possible actions” and “to find a balance among various competing claims”. That bullet right there is important. The reason that is important is because of what we have seen in the past with the government. 
I am going to back up a second. The Conservatives are supporting this motion, but we do have some concerns. What we have seen with the government time and time again, specifically on the fisheries file, is that the minister arbitrarily makes decisions without consulting those who will be impacted the most. We are seeing that today.
 What happened when the minister arbitrarily announced the closure of the lobster fishery? The very next day, within 24 hours, I believe, there were about 500 lobster fishermen who were very upset. The fisher families, the men and women who make their living in our coastal communities, depend on these fisheries. It is seasonal work. Whether a person owns a boat or works on a boat, or works in a factory, such as those in the town of Grand Bank where I have spent so much time in the last while over the surf clam issue, the “clam scam”, they are greatly impacted by decisions that are made in Ottawa without consultation. Thus, I ask members to pay close attention to that bullet. It is bullet (iii) of Motion No. 154.
The final bullet says, “and that the Committee present its final report to the House” by the end of the 2018 calendar year. As I said earlier, the Conservative Party cares about our whales. We care deeply about our marine habitat. We want clean oceans and waterways. I fish. I hunt. I want our waterways to be clear and fresh. I want our air to be fresh for my kids and my grandkids as we move forward. We all want that. When we listen to some of our colleagues, of course, they think we are the spawns of the devil, just ogres. However, we care deeply about our marine habitat, and we will be supporting this motion.
I look forward to working with my colleagues at the fisheries committee, because we do great work there. This is a committee that is made up of all parties and is, of course, led by the Liberal side. However, we have done some incredible work. We did some great work on the marine protected area study. However, again we found out that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as the Minister of Transport, like to talk about consultation and our indigenous peoples being the most important relationship that they have, yet time and time again what we do we see? We see no consultation. That is why, no different than the surf clam or the clam scam, we are seeing indigenous groups now taking the government to court because it is not consulting.
As a matter of fact, there is an organization that is made up of fishers and processors from right across our country, who said that when the Conservatives were in power, there were consistent regulations. The group may not have always liked them, but there was consistent access to ministers and it had a seat at the table. This group, a national organization, told me that with the current government, if it wants to see a minister or get a seat at the table, it has to go through an NGO, an environmental group, first.
I have attended events and functions which were supposed to be fishery round tables. The minister is very accommodating. He allows me as the fisheries critic or shadow minister to attend them, along with the NDP shadow minister or critic. However, at the one I attended, there was not one fisher there. It was entirely environmental groups. So be it, but I have to commend my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for adding (iii), which says, “those who might be impacted by any possible actions, and working to find a balance among various competing claims”. 
I want to talk about the announcements within the last 24 hours. I am not a fisherman, which I said earlier, and far be it for me to talk about the process and how it goes. However, I have spent some time on the docks of Grand Bank, Newfoundland, and Halifax, and I have talked to the fishers. I have been on the ground. I have been at Sharon's in Grand Bank and had coffee with the men and women who work either in the factory or on boats. I have spoken with them and heard their stories. I have asked them how long it takes for them to go out to sea and back and, for this fishery, it takes about six days.
This is some of the hardest work that anyone can imagine, but these workers do it and have done it for generations. Their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, have done it. They talk about the wounds of the past that go straight up the middle of Grand Bank, as there is not one family that has not been negatively impacted by this industry and not lost a family member to the sea. They work hard, they toil, trying to make a living for their communities and families. They expect their government to back them up or, at the very least, when it is making legislation, to consult them. They want the government to bring them to the table, tell them what it plans to do, and ask them how it will impact them. They want to be consulted when the government says it understands it is going to have a negative impact but that it needs to do it to save the whales.
 Everyone agrees, and I am correct on that. We just bought a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. That is not going to build even an inch of pipeline. We just gave $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company; thanks very much. There was no consultation.
There have been closures announced in the last 24 hours, and the fishermen and their families were given less than 72 hours to get their gear out of the water. I do not know how far off they are, but that is going to put the lives of fishers at risk: men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, moms and dads, and grandfathers. We are unnecessarily forcing them to pull their gear with a moment's notice.
At the very least, the minister should truly live up to what he says he is going to do, and consult with those in coastal communities that his policies are going to impact.
Mr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Motion No. 154 to study how we can better protect and recover the St. Lawrence estuary beluga and the North Atlantic right whales on our east coast, and the southern resident killer whales on our west coast.
It might seems strange that somebody whose riding is comprised mostly of mountains, including the Rockies, the Selkirk Mountains, and the Purcell Mountains, is up here speaking on whales. However, I have a special affinity for whales.
When I was taking my Bachelor of Science degree in ecology from the University of Manitoba, in the summers I worked as a park naturalist at Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Whales were absolutely an important part of our lives, of the visitor experience, and of the ecology of the west coast of Vancouver Island. 
This was true of gray whales in particular. Gray whales spend their winters off the coast of Baja California, and their summers off the coast of Alaska. There was a group of six to eight gray whales that spent their summers off Long Beach, so we got the opportunity to spend a little time with them, for the first time, and to study what they were doing there. We donned scuba gear and went down to the bottom of the bay at Long Beach to see what they were feeding on. We took photographs of the gray whales to start identifying them. It was a very exciting part of the visitor experience, and of course whenever killer whales showed up on the west coast, the excitement would just ripple through all the people who lived there, as well as the people who were visiting.
It is really important to have a special affinity for whales, and we absolutely need to do better for them.
I have some interesting facts. Are members aware that whales are, in fact, born tail first? Whales sleep with one brain hemisphere at a time, which allows them to come up for air while they sleep. Also, the accumulated wax in a whale's ear can be used to tell its age and any toxins it may have encountered.
Although there is still so much we do not know about whales, anyone knowledgeable about these creatures would tell us that they are incredibly intelligent. It has been demonstrated that whales are very innovative in their hunting methods, often hunting collectively. I am sure some members have seen the video of a pod of whales working together to knock a lonely seal off a patch of ice. Scientists have also observed that whales communicate with a very complex language. Many members may have heard underwater recordings of whales speaking to one another. Whales also show a variety of emotions, ranging from joy to grief. There is a documented incident in which 30 false killer whales from a pod stayed with an injured member for three days in shallow waters until it died. The whales were willing to risk their lives in order to comfort one of their own.
Despite the whale's many fascinations, humanity's carelessness has allowed multiple species to become endangered. For example, the noise pollution caused by oil and gas developments and tanker traffic can damage whales' hearing and communication. This can prevent their use of breeding and feeding grounds and can disturb their migratory path. Furthermore, Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project will increase oil traffic sevenfold along British Columbia's coast, increasing the possibility of collisions with ships and a catastrophic spill of raw bitumen. 
Collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear, and pollution have caused the deaths of many whales. The southern resident killer whale is now on the endangered species list, with only 76 whales alive today. Only 450 North Atlantic right whales and 900 St. Lawrence estuary beluga whales remain.
Whales are vital to maintaining the food chain and ensuring that overpopulation in the ocean does not occur. A news release from Fisheries and Oceans Canada on August 8, 2017 stated, “Whales are critical to our marine ecosystems. As they are a key part of the marine food web, the health of these marine mammal populations is a key indicator of the health of our coastal waters.” 
It is important that we work to preserve our delicate ecosystems, on land as well as on water. Without that protection, animals and plants are easily susceptible to endangerment and even extinction.
This kind of complex system is in jeopardy in my riding, Kootenay—Columbia, where the population of mountain caribou is in extreme danger due to human activity. Forest fires, old growth timber harvesting, motorized recreation, and predators all impact caribou. Without caribou, the whole ecosystem in my part of the world will be impacted, and the quality of our wilderness sadly diminished. If we do not work to protect the whales, the same thing can occur.
If the ecological importance and the intelligence of whales are not enough to earn members' commitment, then perhaps their economic importance will do so. According to an article in the online magazine Seeker, the whale-watching industry generated $2 billion in revenue in 2009, attracting 13 million ecotourists. The whale-watching industry also helped boost the local economy of Digby Neck and the islands. While the nearest whale feeding and breeding grounds are nowhere near my riding, Kootenay—Columbia, my constituents feel that whales are vital to our province, our economy, and our country. 
Turning a blind eye to the tragic deaths of the St. Lawrence estuary beluga, the southern resident killer whales, and the North Atlantic right whales would be a tremendous mistake. Our desire for oil and our carelessness with fishing nets should not cost the lives of hundreds of whales. Volunteer groups, such as the Campobello Whale Rescue Team, should not have to risk their lives responding to dozens of reports of whales caught in fishing nets. The deaths of these whales could have been prevented.
 Motion No. 154 is an attempt to prevent further deaths from occurring. My NDP colleagues and I support Motion No. 154. The study that would come from this motion would help identify steps to protect and help whales in their recovery and identify the impact of human activity on their survival. This motion was introduced following the deaths of 12 North Atlantic right whales in Canadian waters and four in American waters in the last year, in the span of about seven months. That is roughly 3.5% of the population, the equivalent of suddenly losing 1.25 million Canadians. We must do better.
Despite the useful information that would be realized through the study, I still have a few concerns with this motion. The Species at Risk Act provides for taking immediate action on such matters. The government should be using that route for whales, issuing an emergency order. We would also like the government to take action on protecting the most vulnerable whale species immediately, not wait for the outcome of the committee study, which would not be completed until the end of the calendar year. 
According to Hussein Alidina, lead specialist in ocean conservation with the World Wildlife Fund Canada, the motion “doesn’t provide the kind of action we need immediately to recover the orcas”. More research is not enough to save the orcas, which are on the brink of extinction. Concrete action must be taken. Whale-watching must be limited when they are foraging, and other measures must be implemented within the next few months, in time for the chinook feeding season in the Salish Sea.
The southern resident killer whale was listed under the Species at Risk Act initially in 2003, and action has yet to be taken. On March 15, 2018, Alidina said, “We waited 14 years for an action plan and we’re still struggling to get action.... It’s kind of ridiculous to see how slow things are here. We need to do better—we have a responsibility to do better.” Hussein Alidina is right. We need to do better. We need to expedite the action and do what we can to save our whales.
In a letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Aaron Hill, director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, expressed that he felt the minister was not fulfilling his commitment to restore the chinook salmon population, putting the southern resident killer whales at a greater risk than they already are. Efforts must be made to protect not only the whales but their food supply and habitat.
With every day we wait for the committee to begin its work, we risk losing more of our gentle giants. For species that are barely surviving, we do not have time to wait. Just this past weekend, an autopsy found eight kilograms of plastic in the stomach of a whale found dead on the beach in Thailand. Globally, eight million tonnes of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, killing marine life. Thanks to my colleague, the member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni, and the motion he has put forward, Motion No. 151, there is hope for a plastic-free ocean.
 The government must act immediately to give these whales a fighting chance. In his 1995 Margaret Laurence lecture, titled “A Writer's Life”, Farley Mowat said, “I have tried to be a spokesman for the other beings who have no voice in how we treat them.” We must all be spokespersons for the whales, because they cannot tell us where they hurt or point the finger at who hurt them. We must not take advantage of their silence. We must use our voices to protect them. I want the opportunity to take my grandkids out to the waters of B.C. to show them the beautiful southern resident killer whales, and I believe other members do as well. Let us all give our support to Motion No. 154.
Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am proud to support Motion No. 154, introduced by my colleague, the member for New Brunswick Southwest. Her advocacy on such an important topic is certainly to be commended.
On a personal note, my family used to travel out east to Nova Scotia every summer to visit my uncle, aunt, and cousins, and we would usually camp for an extended period of time in Cape Breton, and along the way to Nova Scotia. We would enjoy different adventures along the way, including whale-watching. As a kid, I was able to see beluga whales and humpback whales in the St. Lawrence at Tadoussac, and I would like to think that others will continue to have that same opportunity. I would like to think that our government will take sufficient action so that I would be able to travel with my wife and my son, Mackinlay, out east to Nova Scotia and go whale-watching as well.
I want to thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me about the importance of protecting our whale populations here in Canada. Many constituents, for example, wrote to me requesting that our government act to protect the southern resident killer whales and to take emergency action. In their letters, they noted that there is a large risk of southern resident orca extinction in this century if conditions remain unchanged. In their words to us as representatives, and to our government, they say, “The extinction of these whales, and many other endangered species in Canada, is a tragedy that you have the power to prevent.”
Many constituents have also written to me in support of Bill S-203, which would put an end to the captivity of cetaceans, and I look forward to supporting that legislation when it comes to the House. Senator Sinclair recently spoke eloquently on this topic, saying, “Cetaceans possess intelligence, emotions, social lives that include extremely close bonds to their families, complex communication skills and roaming lifestyles.”
I would put it this way: We should treat all animals that think and feel with respect and compassion, and that means giving adequate consideration to how human activities affect animal habitats and lives. 
There are a number of whales addressed in this motion, and I want to address each in turn, beginning with the North Atlantic right whale. Many of us remember the epidemic of whales dying along the coast last year. For the first time ever, the North Atlantic right whales' calving season has produced no babies, and this is after almost 20 whales died off the east coast.
Dr. Moira Brown, from the Canadian Whale Institute, has stated:
 The population decline since 2011 demonstrates that right whales do not have the capacity to sustain low birth rates and high death rates for very long. If mortality rates remain the same as between 2011 and 2015, with so few breeding females alive, the species could become functionally extinct in less than 25 years. 
Others have noted that there are only 100 breeding female right whales left, and 17 scientists wrote last year to our Prime Minister, noting:
 What is required now is bold and swift action to reduce fishing gear entanglements and ship strikes. We urge you to take seriously the warning signs of an impending extinction. 
As my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest noted in her remarks:
 As early as 2007, a study conducted between the Grand Manan Basin and the Roseway Basin determined that reducing vessel speed from 12 knots to 10 knots reduces the risk of a ship strike by 30%, and that in beautiful Bay of Fundy, shifting the shipping lane by four nautical miles to the east reduces the risk of a vessel collision by 90%. 
The government proposed a recovery action plan in 2016, and this motion would be incredibly important to assess the actions under that plan.
With respect to the St. Lawrence estuary belugas, the very belugas I was able to see as a kid, the Department of Fisheries notes that, “before 1885, there were as many as 10,000 belugas in the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf. In the 1980s, when regular monitoring began, the population was estimated to be around 1,000 individuals.” Today, that population is estimated at only 900. Commercial whaling, just as it depleted the right whales, has also depleted the beluga whales population severely. Although whaling for belugas has been banned since 1979, there has been no noticeable recovery in the population. 
A number of factors are to blame for the decline of the species, such as reduced food sources, disturbance by humans, and habitat degradation, but principally ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. There is a recovery strategy under the Species at Risk Act for the beluga whale, posted and developed in 2012. Again, this motion is about assessing these plans and what further actions need to be taken.
With respect to the southern resident killer whale, this is the species about which I received so many letters from constituents. My constituents repeatedly noted they were concerned that there are only an estimated 76 southern resident orcas remaining in the Salish Sea waterways, down from 98 in 1995.
A number of organizations—Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund, among others—noted that faced with declining stocks of Chinook salmon, their primary source of food, and acoustic and physical disturbance from vessels, which interferes with their ability to hunt and communicate, the southern residents are at serious risk of malnutrition and starvation.
Our government has again taken some actions here. Most recently, in the last day, our government took action to reduce fishing of the Chinook salmon to ensure that there is adequate food supply for the southern resident killer whales. Of course, in the oceans protection plan, a $1.5 billion investment in the health of our oceans and the safety of those who use them, there was a specific reference and focus on three species of endangered whales: the right whale, the beluga, and the southern resident killer whale. Scientists are going to review how effective our current measures are and report their findings to the public, and there will be continued consultations in terms of the best way forward for protecting these species.
More specifically, under that oceans protection plan, we have seen new science funding to develop and test technologies that alert vessels to the presence of whales, lowering the risk of collisions. DFO has noted that in response to requests from a number of stakeholders for better ways to protect whales, DFO researchers will work with partners to develop and test various technologies able to detect the presence of whales in near-real time, such as underwater microphones, coupled with networks that track whale sightings. The goal is to capture near-real time information on whales in specific areas and on whale location.
The department recently hosted a meeting of Canadian and international experts to discuss various technologies, and the group will continue to do work to improve measures to protect whales. Again, there is $3.1 million for research projects, including for the University of British Columbia, to examine the effect of changes to the supply and quality of Chinook salmon, their source of food, and Ocean Wise will study the impact environmental stressors are having on whales, such as noise and limits on prey.
The minister has said that we are going to make a series of decisions that may necessarily represent some disruption for certain sectors, but will be guided by scientific advice and our solemn responsibility to ensure the protection and recovery of southern resident killer whales.
Why this motion in particular? The motion calls for the fisheries committee to study the situation of endangered whales, to identify steps that could be taken to continue efforts to protect and conserve the whale populations, to identify immediate and longer-term improvements that would limit the impact of human activities on each of these species, to call expert witnesses to find a balance among competing claims, and to present a final report by the end of 2018.
ln a letter of support for this motion, Rick Bates, CEO and executive vice-president of the Canadian Wildlife Federation said that a study undertaken by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans “will benefit all efforts to conserve our endangered whales by producing an all-party examination of the situation and how it can be improved.”
Dr. Moira Brown from the Canadian Whale Institute notes that if mortality rates remain the same as between 2011 and 2015, with so few breeding females alive, the right whale could become functionally extinct in less that 25 years if we do not take action.
Michael Broad, president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, said the organization supports the overall objectives of this proposed motion and is strongly interested in bringing forward industry's perspective on risk management actions.
Why is this important, for me in particular, and why am I standing up? It is important. Canadians in my riding and across the country have called for strong conservation measures to protect our whale populations. While the government's actions to date are important and welcome, it is also important to assess whether the government's actions are sufficient to meet our goals. That is certainly the work of the fisheries committee.
Finally, it is important to maintain pressure to produce even stronger action. My hope is that when the study is undertaken and the report is delivered by the end of the year, we can identify where there are successes and where we need to continue to move on this issue. My hope is that the report will provide clear evidence of the need for further action and that the government will heed that call.
We have an opportunity to do what is right. Rare in this House, we also have an opportunity to do what is right in a non-partisan way. I fully expect all members in this chamber to support this motion, and I fully expect the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to produce a unanimous report to address this timely and important topic.
On a final note, oceans protection is important to all of us. I know plastics are a serious issue to that end. I want to invite all members and all constituents in Beaches—East York to attend a screening provided by the Water Brothers on July 10 in my riding at the Fox Theatre at 7 p.m. I hope to see all my constituents there.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has the right of reply for five minutes.
Ms. Karen Ludwig (New Brunswick Southwest, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak for the second time to my motion on the protection of endangered whales in Canada. I would also like to thank my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to my motion and supported it, and all those who advocate for animal protection, whether in the House or elsewhere.
As mentioned, the motion was amended during the first hour of debate to reflect the unprecedented work the government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are already doing. The amendments also highlight the importance of finding a balance between protecting these magnificent marine mammals and ensuring minimal impact to industry.
The motion includes the need for government to identify immediate and longer-term improvements that will limit the impact of human activities on these whales, and by doing so add to the population recovery efforts and to the recommendations for new and enhanced action.
The motion was developed in consultation with over 50 stakeholders across the country, including the fishing, shipping, and research industries and first nations. It is supported across party lines and across provincial borders, and is endorsed by stakeholders in virtually every industry affected.
The most common concern I have heard about the motion in debate and from stakeholders was in regard to the need for immediate action versus conducting a study on the protection of endangered whales.
Immediate action is needed, and this government and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard acted swiftly in addressing this need. The oceans protection plan represents an unprecedented $1.5 billion investment in our marine areas as well as specific investments for the protection of whales.
As both the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the hon. member for Avalon mentioned during the first hour, a study will not delay action. The purpose of this study is to inform future actions. Our government made a commitment to science-based policy decisions. 
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands included the importance of the Chinook salmon to the southern resident killer whale, and I am very pleased to highlight that last month the minister announced plans to reduce the allowable catch of Chinook salmon by 25% and $9.5 million to support projects across British Columbia to restore the habitats of these wild salmon.
Her Majesty's official opposition raised concerns of the capacity of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to take on another study at this time. Those concerns were addressed in the amendments made in the first hour to extend the ask that the committee's report be tabled in the House by the end of the 2018 calendar year. 
Not only was Motion No. 154 developed in consultation with stakeholders, but my team and I also worked very closely with the minister's team to best complement current actions and limit duplication. 
I call on all members of the House to consider that it is not too late to study all of the options available when it comes to the protection of our oceans and marine mammals. In fact, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has not issued a formal report on the subject of endangered whales in Canada since 2002. Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect that we, as Parliamentarians and as a government, can and will do our best. 
There is no question that the situation of our endangered whales is as fluid as the tides of the Bay of Fundy. It changes hourly, daily, weekly, and we must do everything we can to respond, including doing further study to ensure future protections.
I again want to thank the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for his continued leadership and commitment to this issue. In every situation, his department responded swiftly to introduce measures to protect our endangered whales. This study will be a complement to the work already being done. 
Since the introduction of Motion No. 154 in April, we have learned that a group of U.S. senators suggested that Canadian seafood should be banned from U.S. markets if Canadian standards were found to be less protective than those of U.S. fisheries when it comes to whales. We must take every possible option very seriously for the long-term viability of our fisheries and our coastal communities. 
 It is possible to have a prosperous economy and a thriving environment, but we must continue to work closely with our industry partners. The world's leading scientists and others have long worked with marine industries to find a balance that provides maximum protection to whales with minimum disruption to industry.
In closing, I ask all parliamentarians to do what Canadians, our future generations, and the global community expect us to do on this issue and offer their full support for Motion No. 154.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to an order adopted on Thursday, May 18, the vote is deferred until Wednesday, June 6, at the end of oral questions. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We are now suspended until 12 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:58 a.m.)
[Stage Direction]
 (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) 

Government Orders
Business of SupplyMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP):  moved:
 That the House: (a) re-affirm its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including article 32(2), which guarantees “free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources”; and (b) acknowledge that advancing Constitutional Reconciliation through a nation-to-nation approach means respecting the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples and the will of their representative institutions, like the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs which has said with respect to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that “No means no – the project does not have the consent it requires”, which is a principled position conducive to achieving the ends of the UNDRIP. 
Madam Speaker, I know it is always hard to pronounce the name of that part of my riding. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the very impressive member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
 First of all, I think it is worth reminding the House that we passed Bill C-262 some time ago. It was a historic moment when the House adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is why I think it is important to start with that reminder.
My motion reaffirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including article 32.2. I worked on UNDRIP negotiations for 23 years. For all those years, I was a participant and a negotiator working on the texts we have agreed to as part of the declaration. We need to understand something about the whole conversation around this in Canada today. People who talk about reconciliation cannot just say whatever they please. They have to recognize Canada's constitutional context. Anyone who talks about reconciliation in Canada has to talk about it with that context in mind. 
For instance, one of the things the Supreme Court states in its rulings is that reconciliation is necessary, but that it is also vital to recognize that our consent, the consent of the indigenous peoples, Canada's first peoples, is equally necessary. 
That is what reconciliation is all about. We must always come back to that principle. In a 2004 decision, the Supreme Court wrote that the principle of reconciliation rests on the government's duty to recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, since it is in some way more honourable than Crown sovereignty.
The pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples has an overriding right over the crown's assumed sovereignty. These are not my words. They are the words of the Supreme Court. The “assumed Crown sovereignty” is what the Supreme Court used. 
When discussing the sovereignty of the crown, or whatever we wish, there are a lot of issues, one of them being where we stand today. Where we stand today is pretty significant, I would suggest, because we have an issue before us. We praise people who say yes but ignore those who have the same right to say no. People have said that. There are communities across the country that have said no, and they have the right to say no. 
That is our point. I could go on and on speaking about all of these issues, but all of this is about the right to self-determination, and they have said so. Let us keep it to that and respect that right to say yes, of course, but to say no also. 
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-262, which was passed by the majority in this place. My colleague's bill would now require that the government reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in all federal government legislation. I would welcome my colleague's comments on this. 
On two occasions, I have brought forward amendments for the government to include in new legislation coming forward, including Bill C-57, which would amend the Sustainable Development Act; and Bill C-69, which would transform our entire major project review process. The Liberal government turned down more than a dozen proposals to include the UNDRIP in that legislation. I wonder if the member could also speak to this. 
The government seems to want to give the illusion that it supports all the TRC calls to action. It is giving the illusion that it now supports the UNDRIP, but in its actions, it does not seem to be delivering on that promise, also as pointed out recently by the Auditor General of Canada. 
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question. I worked on this bill for over two years. When this new government promised to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a promise it made both during and after the election campaign, I hoped it would be easy to come to an agreement on the declaration and on my bill. After all, Bill C-262 simply implements that promise and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 43 and 44. I thought it was a no-brainer, but I was wrong. I think it is deplorable that we have had to work so hard to get to this point. Now that—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. It is time for another question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Omar Alghabra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the work of my colleague for his advocacy on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and congratulate him on the passing of his bill last week. His passion and his commitment to this issue are inspiring, and I thank him for all his work.
I want to ask him a genuine question. He knows that this has been a controversial issue and a divisive issue. He certainly knows that there is an NDP government in Alberta that supports it and an NDP government in B.C. that opposes it. Many indigenous communities support it, and some indigenous communities oppose it. 
Could the member tell us what the government's role is in navigating and steering this process?
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I think the most direct answer would be that it is a matter of self-determination.
It is about the right to self-determination. People have a right to determine the issues that confront them, and that is what happened in this case. Quite simply, it is about the right to self-determination.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Madam Speaker, my friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and I like to joke with one another from time to time. My background is Irish and that is how the Irish show their fondness for someone. In all sincerity, the prospect of sharing some time with him today in Parliament on this issue, which he has fought for for more than 30 years, fills me with nothing but pride and humility. His expertise on this issue, his personal story, and the stories shared by so many first nations and aboriginal people across Canada makes me feel wholly unqualified to join in such a debate with him, yet here I am. I thank him for this opportunity.
It may seem strange to some Canadians who have been following this issue as to why the New Democrats have chosen one of our few opposition days to bring forward a motion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to reaffirm our support of this declaration. Less than a week ago we voted for my friend's bill, declaring that same declaration would become part of Canadian law. As my friend from Edmonton Strathcona just pointed out in her questions, even as we are moving legislation through from a Liberal government that has promised to include that declaration in the way it writes legislation, the Liberals are refusing time and again to accept any changes to bills we are dealing with right now.
 Therefore, we need to reaffirm our support of this declaration because the Liberal government just a week ago voted for it and the very same Liberal government refuses to include it meaningfully at all in our legislation and to apply it over a very contentious and difficult issue, which has become the Trans Mountain crisis, much of the crisis of the government's own manufacturing, its own making.
From the very outset, when the Liberals were campaigning for office, they promised things for the people of Alberta, that they would bring forward a process that would receive the support of open-minded and progressive Canadians as to how to review pipelines. In fact, they promised to redo the review of this pipeline. The Prime Minister said that the government would redo the process, because the previous process, the one that Stephen Harper designed, was a failure of basic common sense and the understanding for the need of science and proper consultation. We arrive at that word again, “consultation”, meaningful consultation.
The Prime Minister voted for a resolution, my friend's bill, that said, “free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories” of aboriginal people. A pipeline and the associated oil tanker traffic to that pipeline clearly affects the lands and territories of aboriginal people, certainly along the route and certainly on the coast. Did the government achieve that? Did it fulfill its promise, not just to aboriginal Canadians but all Canadians, and avert this crisis we now face, a crisis that has driven the Liberal government to buy the project wholly from a Texas oil company for $4.5 billion?
I would not want the Prime Minister to handle my private affairs. He just bought a 65-year-old pipeline, which had been bought less than a decade ago for a half a billion dollars, for $4.5 billion 10 years later. My goodness, with that kind of investment strategy, I worry for the general finances of the country.
It may seem strange to Canadians as to why we have to reaffirm this just seven days later, but we do. Aboriginal people on the coast are wondering who the Prime Minister actually is. They saw the version of the Prime Minister, who repeated many times that there was no more important relationship to him than that with Canada's aboriginal people. The possessive in that statement has bothered me for some time, “Canada's aboriginal people”, our aboriginal people. It has a certain neo-colonial ring to it, that it is a possession, that it is a people who are ours, that they belong to us somehow. As one aboriginal leader said to me on the coast just this weekend, how colonial could it possibly be that the Government of Canada has now purchased a pipeline and has not waited for the court cases to finish before it says that this pipeline will get built, construction will begin?
Over and over again, the Liberals say that they believe in the rule of law. Do they? No, they do not. There are substantive first nations cases in court right now, from the Tsleil-Waututh, the Sto:lo, the Coldwater, and other groups, which say that the consultation process is a joke and is insufficient. What do they base that on? It is based on the jurisprudence of the northern gateway decision that came down, the Gitga’at decision. They are saying that they are now finding through these leaked documents from federal lawyers that what they need to do is have their legal case ready for approval prior to approving. It also said, “Let 's make this thing Gitga’at proof.” It does not say that their consultations were fulsome and meet the requirements of the law. They have said that they must do whatever they can so they do not get sued again.
 As Ruben George from the Sacred Trust, a Tsleil-Waututh organization, stated, “They haven’t learned...What is crazy about it... is we’ve (won) over and over again in court.“ Who are they? The crown, the government. It seems to need this lesson over and over again. What does it do? It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of heartache, particularly for aboriginal people who are seeking self-determination. How radical is it in 2018 for a people to seek self-determination from a government that has said the relationship is the most important to it than any other in the country?
It also seems strange to me, as somebody who represents the northwest of British Columbia, that we have seen this movie before. The Harper Conservative government proposed a pipeline, insufficiently consulted with first nations people, and slammed its fist on the same desk as the current Prime Minister is doing, saying that the pipeline would get built. We wonder if the House of Commons our Constitution means anything. It seems not to because the Liberals think that bullying will work.
I do not know if my friends remember, but I remember when the then Harper government said that anyone who opposed that pipeline was an enemy of the state, was a foreign-funded radical for raising radical questions, like what happened to diluted bitumen when it went into water, and how would we clean it up, a question that still has not been answered. We think that would matter to a government that states it cares about the environment, not to worry, that there will be more tugs. What will it do when it hits the water?
We just had the report on the Nathan E. Stewart, a relatively small vessel that sunk of off B.C.'s coast three years ago. What happened? The second mate fell asleep, that this happens. The alarm was turned off, that this happens. The response was inadequate and insufficient over a small incident that did not contain diluted bitumen, which is much harder to clean up.
 What is frustrating for a lot of Canadians on both sides of this issue, those who want to see the pipeline built and those who oppose its construction, both for valid, decent, sound reasons, is that they look to a government that promises everything and does nothing.
This is a very dangerous thing for the Liberal government to do because it repeats the mistakes of the past. First nations are engaged by companies and government. I have been at these meetings, so I have seen the conversation actually take place. The company and the government comes in and says, “Here is a memorandum of understanding.” It is a basic business contract. It says that if the project goes ahead, this is how they will handle things like revenue and job creation. However, they say that they do not need the first nation's consent, that it is clear. The government then takes those agreements out to the public, as the Prime Minister has shamefully done, saying the government has 34 to 40 agreements with first nations. He says that they want to see it built. This divide-and-conquer strategy has been used time and again against Canada's aboriginal people, and here we are again with the possessive. The government takes the possessive and says, “We're going to divide you”. It is pitting aboriginal group against another, and it lies to them all the way to the bank. No, that is not going to happen anymore. Parliament needs to reaffirm the vote it had, and reaffirm, finally, to aboriginal people that we truly respect their rights and title.
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, I have a question that is important in the context of this discussion.
It is about the rule of law. As parliamentarians, we have to uphold the rule of law everyday as we pass laws and legislation, etc. As a parliamentarian, what does the rule of law mean to my hon. colleague? Does it mean sending in the army or upholding the Constitution and the rights under the Constitution?
Nathan Cullen: Madam Speaker, that is such a profound question. It seems remarkable that we even have to ask that question. In Canada's Parliament what does the rule of law mean? It is a valid question because we see governments not abiding by it all the time. Why do first nations win in court over and over again? Because the government of the day does not respect the rule of law and it loses on section 35 challenges time and again.
Some historical context is important in this case. When this pipeline was first built, first nations peoples were barred from even hiring a lawyer, never mind them not having the right to vote. That is how old this pipeline is, yet all these years later, we are somehow still debating the same thing. Do aboriginal people have a right to have the rule of law respected by the Canadian government? 
We use the term “the honour of the crown”. I do not know if we can actually use it anymore. It has been so dishonoured for so long, time and again. The worse type of dishonouring is when a government is hypocritical and pretends to believe in rights and title and then acts in the opposite way. That does the greatest dishonour, not to just the current government but to this very place and institution.
Mr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member has insinuated that our government and our Prime Minister does not care about indigenous people or has, in fact, used the word “lied”. Our government has made that a top priority, and I think for anybody who has listened to the Prime Minister speak, he has been very clear on that. 
My question for the member is this. We live in a democracy with many first nations, and we use the term “first nations” because there is more than one nation. Many first nations support the government. Many first nations support the pipeline. It is true that some do not support it. However, we live in a democracy. When he speaks of first nations as one nation, saying they are against it or they are for it, that is incorrect. That is misleading.
Therefore, if in our democracy most first nations were for something, but not all, because we cannot expect unanimity, where should we lie? Should we lie with the majority or the minority? How does the hon. member see that? 
Nathan Cullen: Madam Speaker, I have to say wow. I just heard a parliamentarian ask if there is a minority group and a minority opinion, who has rights? If there is a majority group that has rights too, then what will we do about that? My goodness, what could we possibly do about that in Canada's Parliament? 
What is the charter all about? It is about rights. It is about constitutionally-protected rights, which this is about that. Government does not just get to say that people who have rights are the ones who happen to agree with it. That is not how rights work. For all the people watching this, please understand that this is a fundamental principle that I worry the Prime Minister might not yet get. Yes, Canadians have heard him speak about the importance of the relationship with indigenous peoples. They want to see him act on that. They want to see him actually respect aboriginal rights and title. There are cases pending at our superior courts and our Supreme Court expressing aboriginal rights and title, and the Prime Minister says that he does not care, that the government is building the pipeline. Know me by my actions, not by my words.
 By the Prime Minister's actions, he seeks to further divide and conquer. He seeks to continue that colonial past. He will only lose in court, and only cause more conflict. That is what the Prime Minister has invited upon our country.
Ms. Kim Rudd (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the sanctimony of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite something.
Before I begin my remarks today and speak to the motion by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I want to take a moment to congratulate him on the passage of his private member's bill in the House last week. Bill C-262 is a fitting tribute to, and a crowning achievement in, his lifetime of work promoting and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a bill inspired in part by what he endured as a former student in the Indian residential school system, and by his determination to reconcile with those who had, as he says, put him away for 10 years. It is a bill that speaks to those without a voice, and it is a bill that reflects his own remarkable courage, perseverance, and selfless public service.
I know that the member opposite often says he was not alone in his pursuit of justice, but there is also no denying that his decades long journey exacted a heavy toll on him, not just in terms of his endless and exhausting hours of work, but in the personal sacrifices too, including precious time lost with loved ones. We are forever indebted to him for this, and all members on this side of the House are honoured to have supported his bill. In fact, our only regret about Bill C-262 is that it did not pass in the House unanimously. History will almost certainly question the bill's opponents harshly, but I will leave it to them to explain their position to Canadians.
Today, the hon. member opposite asked for our support again with a motion that builds on Bill C-262, a motion that among other things asks all members to reaffirm their support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to advance a nation-to-nation approach that respects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Our government is readily willing to do both, as we have many times before. We share much in common with the hon. member, more perhaps than he may even realize, but I will get to more of that later.
Where we differ is on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. Our government's decision to approve the $7.4-billion project, as well as our announcement last week to secure the existing pipeline and ensure that its expansion proceeds, has never, ever been about choosing sides or putting one province ahead of another, or one indigenous community before another. Instead, it has always been about Canada's interest. That includes the rights of all Canadians and the rights of indigenous peoples. It is our responsibility and within our jurisdiction to work in close partnerships with provinces and indigenous peoples, to consult and engage as the crown, and to act in the national interest to ensure the stability and growth of the Canadians economy, and to get our resources to market sustainably and competitively.
The TMX pipeline is part of that. It is in Canada's national interest as a result of the most in-depth indigenous consultations ever done in this country on a project; as a result of a significant number of letters and submissions from the Canadian public; and also because of the thousands of good, well-paying jobs it will create, the better prices it will ensure for Canadian oil, and the increased government revenues at all levels that will follow. All the while, our government is making unprecedented investments to enhance environmental protection and support indigenous participation.
To understand all of this and how we have arrived at where we are today, it is helpful to look back at where we started. From the moment our government was sworn into office, we made it clear that there is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. We have heard the Prime Minister say that many times in the House and elsewhere. He wrote it in the mandate letters of every federal cabinet minister, and he made it a central pillar of our government's vision for this clean growth century, starting with the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered exactly two and a half years ago today.
I want to read an excerpt from the throne speech so that Canadians can appreciate how it has guided our every action over the past 30 months. It reads:
 Because it is both the right thing to do and a certain path to economic growth, the Government will undertake to renew, nation-to-nation, the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. 
It is because of that perspective that we fully endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and why we are acting on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and why the Prime Minister appointed a working group of ministers last year to review all laws, policies, and operational practices related to indigenous peoples. 
In short, our government's efforts are cut from the same cloth as the hon. member's Bill C-262, and they go even further in ensuring that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations regarding aboriginal and treaty rights. We are adhering to international human rights standards, including the UN declaration. We are supporting the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and we are doing all of these things in collaboration with indigenous peoples.
The result is that this past February the Prime Minister announced a historic new approach for renewing the relationships between Canada and first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, one that underscores that true reconciliation must start with the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights. Our government is doing this by developing a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, a framework that is being co-developed through national engagement to rebuild indigenous governments and nations and to support a path toward self-determination.
One of our government's earliest expressions of this new approach was the introduction of Bill C-69, which transforms the way Canada reviews major new resource projects by co-developing with indigenous partners a direct and permanent role in impact assessment and regulatory process from beginning to end, which brings me back to the Trans Mountain expansion project.
One of the first things our government did in coming to office was to launch a new interim approach to environmental assessments and regulatory reviews in Canada, an approach based on five guiding principles that included more meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and explicit inclusion of indigenous knowledge. Then, to enable even more voices to be heard, the Minister of Natural Resources appointed a special ministerial panel to travel up and down the length of the proposed pipeline's route, holding additional hearings beyond the National Energy Board's own regulatory review.
We heard through our engagements with indigenous peoples and non-indigenous Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia and across Canada that the project is in the national interest, that the jobs and revenue are needed, and that the risks can be mitigated. However, we also heard that we needed to manage the risks of the project very closely, which is another reason why we launched our country's single largest investment to protect Canada's oceans, marine life, and coastal communities, a $1.5 billion investment that will strengthen the eyes and ears of our coastlines, the longest in the world.
It will enhance our response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill and ensure that coastal and indigenous communities are at the forefront of development and implementation of the plan. 
It is also why we invested in and co-developed an indigenous advisory monitoring committee for the TMX pipeline, the first committee of its kind in Canada to help oversee the safety of a major energy project through its entire life cycle. Indigenous participation in this advisory and monitoring committee includes representatives that both support and oppose the project. This partnership and diversity of views is essential to advance our shared goals of safety and protection of the environment. As a result of these efforts, indigenous voices will be at the forefront, their counsel sought, their knowledge valued, and their rights protected. It is the beginning of a new way of managing resources.
As Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation has said of the advisory and monitoring committee: “Indigenous people won't be on the outside looking in. We'll be at the table and on site, to protect our land and our water.” He is right.
The Prime Minister has said that the true measure of any relationship is not whether we all agree, but how we move forward when we do not agree. That is where our focus is.
When our government approved the TMX pipeline, we knew there would be Canadians who would disagree vocally and sometimes vehemently. That is the nature of a healthy and fully functioning democracy. Major energy projects can be controversial. They can divide political parties, as we have witnessed with the Alberta and British Columbia provincial governments who share the same political stripe. These projects can also divide indigenous communities that hold aboriginal and treaty rights protected under our Constitution. Look at those who support and those who oppose this project. There are Canadians who feel so deeply about these things that they will protest in the street and get themselves arrested, as two members of Parliament already have. This right to protest is a cherished Canadian liberty. We live under the rule of law.
I will now return to where I began in my remarks. I opened by commending the hon. member opposite for the passage of his bill, Bill C-262, and I suggested that he shares more common ground with our government than he may realize. There is a very good reason for believing that. It is because of something he said in February when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to discuss his private member's bill. At that time, the member for Pontiac asked the hon. member opposite if he could articulate any distinction between free, prior, and informed consent, and a veto. I will quote the hon member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou at length because, as a lawyer, he displayed his great grasp of the law. The hon. member said:
 I think the distinction is an important one and we need to understand that in this country. The right to free, prior, and informed consent, like all human rights, not just the human rights of indigenous peoples, is a relative right. You need to balance that right with the rights and interests of others, which veto does not do. Veto is an absolute thing, and I don't think our court system, constitutional or otherwise, would ever take that kind of view. That's not how our Canadian legal system works and that's not how the international law system works either. 
The member's explanation is one of the best I have every heard. It is also consistent with one of the most frequently cited interpretations of what free, prior, and informed consent means, as developed by the former UN Special Rapporteur, James Anaya. Mr. Anaya said that consent “should not be regarded as according indigenous peoples a general 'veto power' over decisions that my affect them”. Instead, the overarching objective of free, prior, and informed consent is that all parties work together in good faith to make every effort toward mutually acceptable arrangements, thereby allowing indigenous people to “genuinely influence the decision-making process.”
This is the approach our government took in reaching its decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. 
The member opposite is correct in noting that there are indigenous communities that oppose the project, including six indigenous groups that are exercising their rights in court. There are also 43 rights-bearing indigenous communities along the length of the proposed expansion route who have signed mutual benefit agreements that will create real opportunities in those communities, 32 of which have submitted letters of support. These signified partnership agreements reached between the company and communities go beyond the government's consultation and beyond the 157 conditions of the project that must be in place before operation. 
In addition, the Minister of Finance has noted that since we announced our decision to purchase the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and proceed with its expansion, many investors have already expressed interest in the project, including indigenous groups.
Overriding the consent of those indigenous peoples who support the project or the majority of Canadians who are also in favour of its proceeding is not the solution here, but the contrary. It would go against the intent and spirit of the hon. member's motion. 
The goal of free, prior, and informed consent is to ensure a holistic approach to interests through transparent processes aimed at building consensus.
It is the same goal at the heart of our current legislation to modernize Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews. It highlights the importance of everyone in this House to support developing a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework that makes enshrining the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples real and meaningful, and that will fully support indigenous peoples in their path to self-determination.
How we manage and develop our national resources speaks to who we are as Canadians and the values that define us. Decisions like these are not always easy, popular, or indeed straightforward. I know the member opposite understands that as well as anyone. He has dedicated his life to advancing reconciliation through inclusive and sustainable resource development. We share similar visions; we have the same goals.
While I cannot support the member's motion as it is worded today, I believe we are all well begun with better rules to build a better Canada, one that our children can inherit with pride and build with confidence.
Sheila Malcolmson: Madam Speaker, while the government breaks promises at an increasing rate of speed, the whiplash is extreme. A week ago, the government agreed with my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, and now the parliamentary secretary has said that the government is not going to support the motion.
A solemn promise was made on Vancouver Island during the election campaign that the Prime Minister was going to redo the review for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. I heard that a lot of people voted for him on that basis. The Prime Minister did not do that, but instead he added a ministerial panel. Whenever we ask about this in question period, the minister tells us that the ministerial panel, a process that had no recorded minutes, no translation, was badly organized, and where most of the content was about how bad the NEB review was, made recommendations. The question it asked back to the Prime Minister was, “How might Cabinet square approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and to the UNDRIP principle of “free, prior, and informed consent?”
Can the parliamentary secretary give any evidence that the advice has been taken? Why on earth, if she so believes in UNDRIP, has she not built it into Bill C-69, the Canadian energy regulator—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I will allow the hon. parliamentary secretary some time to respond. We do have to get to other questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Kim Rudd: Madam Speaker, as I listened to the earlier speeches and questions, I could not help but think that the NDP will do anything to stop this project, even disrespecting the rule of law.
The member opposite claims that all communities along the route of the pipeline would need to provide consent to the project, whether they signed a mutual benefit agreement or not. She fails to acknowledge that there are several indigenous communities along the route that support this project.
I wonder if the member opposite could tell this House whether the interests of those communities are not also important. Do they not have value in their quest to have better opportunities for their communities? Yes or no?
Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is interesting. The Liberals bought this pipeline for $4.5 billion. There were 43 first nations who invested in Kinder Morgan, and they totally supported this pipeline.
Did the government receive consent from the first nations who had previous agreements with Kinder Morgan before it decided to purchase this pipeline for $4.5 billion? Did the Liberals consult with first nations? We had 43 first nations signing on to this. We want to know if they were consulted before the government used taxpayers' money, $4.5 billion, to bail out Kinder Morgan?
Kim Rudd: Madam Speaker, one of the things we have been very clear on is that with the purchase of the Trans Mountain expansion project, any agreements that were in place with the current company, Kinder Morgan, will be honoured by our government.
As I said in my remarks, through this whole process, there was already some indication of investors coming forward. Some of those investors are indeed indigenous communities.
The answer to the question from the member opposite is that this project has had the largest consultation in Canadian history on a natural resource project.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, the opposition tabled more than two dozen amendments to the government's impact assessment bill and the bill that would replace the National Energy Board. The member's government is refusing to incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a binding term. The Liberals are including section 35 of the Constitution. They claim to be in the 21st century, but in the 21st century, the world is recognizing a broader base of indigenous rights. Those are reflected in the UNDRIP, which the government claims to be supporting.
The Liberal members keep asking if the NDP does not respect those first nations who are saying they would like to get some compensation for the pipeline going through. They have never heard us speaking against that. The UNDRIP and section 35 say that every first nation has the right of self-determination, and that is what the current government does not seem to get. There is no quota on the UNDRIP.
Kim Rudd: Madam Speaker, for the hon. member, I would suggest that by not supporting the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, the New Democrats are indeed taking away opportunities from the very communities that have signed those agreements. 
As we have said, this has been the largest consultation in Canadian history. We also know that there are many who have come forward to talk about the indigenous monitoring committee that has been put in place, the first of its kind by any government in Canada, to ensure that the lifetime of that pipeline is managed in the safest possible, environmentally sustainable manner that can be had in terms of resource projects. We know it is important, and we have said continually, and the Prime Minister has said, that no relationship is more important to our government than that with indigenous peoples. That means, as I said in my remarks, it is about building consensus and working together. It is not pitting one group of indigenous peoples against another group of indigenous peoples, one province against another province.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.): Madam Speaker, one of the funniest moments in my by-election, the victory over the NDP in 2014, was when the candidate from Fort McMurray promised to build the Canada east pipeline, while the same night the candidate in the riding I was running in promised not to build it. In other words, they were saying one thing to one group of people in one part of the country, and then something different, literally on the same night, in a different part of the country. Thank goodness for Twitter. Thank goodness for a little device like the one I am holding, which also happens to show us what the NDP promised in terms of water cleanup across the country last year. If the NDP had won, the problem for indigenous people would have been that the New Democrats might have kept their promise. 
Are members aware that the New Democrats were proposing to spend only $25 million on clean water this year if they had won? It was not just that, but $25 million was also supposed to solve the housing crisis and the infrastructure crisis in indigenous communities across the country. That is the level of support that the NDP ran on in the last campaign.
To make matters worse, Cindy Blackstock is someone whose name is often raised by the opposition. Do members known how much the New Democrats put on the table to deal with the crisis in care for young people that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said we had to step up on? Do members know how much the NDP promised in the last campaign? It was zero. That is the platform that the New Democrats ran on. I am surprised they won any seats in indigenous communities. I wonder if the member and the parliamentary secretary would care to comment on why we do not want to keep NDP promises.
Kim Rudd: Madam Speaker, one thing that has been very hard to reconcile over this file is that I am not sure if the New Democrats know which side of the fence they are on. We have the British Columbia government and the Alberta government, both NDP governments, on opposite ends of this discussion. We have the federal NDP, which has mostly come out against it, but not really.
My hon. colleague talked about commitments in platforms, and water and housing. Those are the things that our government is working on with renewed vigour. There were 10 years of a former government where that was all ignored. We have a Minister of Indigenous Services who has had the opportunity to take 50 or 60 boil water advisories off permanently. There is more work on housing, mental health, education, and the list goes on. This is about a holistic approach to ensuring the opportunities are realized for those indigenous communities who are part of this process, and who want to be part of this process. This government is going to stand strong to work with all of them.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is my privilege, and I am proud, to represent all the hard-working men, women, and families of Lakeland, including indigenous people across Lakeland in the Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Whitefish Lake First Nation, Kehewin Cree Nation, Frog Lake First Nation, Onion Lake Cree Nation, as well as the Kikino, Buffalo Lake, Fishing Lake, and Elizabeth Métis settlements. 
I will speak about the motion put forward by the NDP today from the perspective of indigenous involvement with energy development in Canada. I can only conclude that the motion involves the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion as a way to advance the narrative that indigenous people in communities are opposed to responsible natural resource development, and to oil and gas in particular. 
Of course, indigenous views of oil and gas and pipelines are not homogeneous. There are a variety of different experiences and opinions within and between indigenous communities, like all Canadians. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to shed some light on the other half of that narrative which is often not discussed in the House or in the media.
I was very proud when the previous Conservative government became the first one in Canada to officially apologize for the residential school system. It launched the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to recognize factors behind socio-economic challenges that indigenous people disproportionately experience, and to start working toward greater awareness, understanding, and deeper knowledge between Canadians. 
Part of the path to reconciliation includes economic reconciliation. JP Gladu, president of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business said:
 First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities must have the resources to drive their own business endeavours and choose their own path toward economic growth, without prejudice. 
He also said:
 Aboriginal communities are going through a demographic boom, often in areas that face labour shortages and lack suppliers for local development projects. Canada cannot afford to lose the next generation of aboriginal business talent. The cost of inaction will be heavy, and not just for aboriginal peoples. 
The reason I want to speak to the motion is not just because I want to reaffirm my support for truth and reconciliation, but also to let the indigenous communities in Lakeland and across Canada know that I and the Conservatives support them in their pursuit of economic development and prosperity. I represent a riding that includes eight first nations and Métis communities in northern rural Alberta. As a person who happens to be part Ojibway myself, which is complicated in my family, as it is in many, it dismays me that the left often uses first nations as pawns in their anti-energy rhetoric, implying that all first nations and Métis people are against oil and gas. 
In Lakeland, and certainly across Alberta, it is very common for first nations and Métis people to be business owners and workers in energy and pipelines. Even the AFN chief, Perry Bellegarde, confirms that 500 of the 630 first nations in Canada are open to pipelines and support petroleum development. I am inspired that first nations, especially across western Canada, are increasingly agitating publicly for themselves that they want more pipelines, because that infrastructure is as crucial to the lifeblood of their communities and to opportunities for their young people as it is anywhere else.
Let us talk about economic prosperity and what it really means. Around 32,000 Métis and first nations people work in Canada's natural resources sector, which is the biggest employer of indigenous people in Canada. In Lakeland and around Alberta, first nations are very active in oil and gas across the value chain, in upstream exploration and production, and in service supply and technology in the oil sands, heavy oil, natural gas, and on pipelines. In Lakeland, a Cree community of about 1,200 people, the Frog Lake First Nation, wanted to reduce poverty in its community. It started its own oil and gas exploration company. Today, Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp. extracts over 3,000 barrels of oil per day, which has brought millions of dollars into its community. It has over $30 million in cash flow. The chairman of its board, Joe Dion said:
 Together, we have to make reconciliation a priority, given the economic risks and gridlock that continues to impede the resource sector nationally, and Alberta's energy sector in particular. I believe that reconciliation can be realized right here in Alberta's energy sector. It is time for bold action. Alberta is not at the cross-roads, it’s in the ditch. 
 The story of Frog Lake is the story of Albertans and people across Canada. It is about aspirations, ambition, entrepreneurialism, and taking ownership of opportunities. 
Sometimes I think my colleagues in the NDP would have us believe that communities like Frog Lake do not exist, that all indigenous peoples in communities are opposed to oil and gas. That is just not the reality. The Fort McKay and Mikisew Cree bands have invested $545 million to buy nearly half the shares in one of Suncor's storage facilities. There are 35 first nations working together, right now and for the past five years, to build an indigenous-owned pipeline from Alberta to northern British Columbia, an initiative that would have the support of every single indigenous community and two provinces along the road if it can go ahead. 
The Fort McKay band, near the Athabaska oil sands, has an unemployment rate of 0%, and financial holdings in excess of $2 billion. Its band members have an average annual income of $120,000.
Goodfish Lake Business Corporation in Lakeland employs 150 Albertans through three dry cleaning and laundry services, which contract with oil and gas, one of which is located in White Fish first nation. A sewing and garment company in Fort McMurray, called Protective Clothing Supplies Ltd., produces petrochemical workwear for businesses in the oil sands.
All of these communities provide jobs for their members and employ people outside of their communities too.
 Chief Archie Waquan, of the Mikisew Cree First Nation, said: 
 I used to challenge industry in my previous years. Now I look back at it and say, “What I have done in the past maybe I shouldn't have done it.” There's a balance between the environment and industry. They have checks and balances for both sides and we'd like to be a part of it. 
There are significant indigenous opportunities, investment, and involvement in oil and gas. That is why it is vital that indigenous communities be welcomed to participate and why thorough consultation with indigenous communities about new energy projects is so important.
The left often implies that there is currently no or insufficient consultation in Canada, but that is not and has never been true. In fact, the 2014 WorleyParsons study confirmed that Canada maintains the highest level of environmental stringency and compliance, the highest level of regulatory transparency, life-cycle analysis, and notably, “thorough consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples, in the world.” The exhaustive benchmarking of major oil and gas jurisdictions explicitly noted the incorporation of traditional knowledge as one of Canada's world-leading strengths in indigenous consultation on energy.
The uninformed and persistent attack on Canada's regulatory track record has both undermined Canada's reputation globally and emboldened anti-energy activists who are fighting to shut down Canadian energy and exports, which, in turn, hurts indigenous communities.
Canadian oil and gas developers have also long been world leaders in best practices of indigenous consultation on their projects, constantly improving early engagement and relationship development. Sometimes it has actually been the government that has had to catch up.
Kinder Morgan, which was prepared to invest $7.4 billion in the Canadian economy, consulted with over 133 aboriginal groups and communities, along with two non-boundary-specific aboriginal groups and nine associations, councils, and tribes. All 43 first nations along the route, 33 of which are in B.C., signed mutual benefit agreements valued at over $400 million, and about 85% of the owners or occupants on the pipeline route raised no issues or concerns during the consultations.
 Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation talked about the impact Trans Mountain has on his community: 
 In my opinion, if [Trans Mountain] doesn't proceed, hundreds of millions of dollars will be foregone to first nations all the way along the pipeline route. 
 Why I say this is that, taking my own community as an example, we negotiated really hard. It was really my young council— they're a little over half my age—that negotiated this agreement.... 
 My young council negotiated for a year and a half or more, night and day in some instances, with a pretty tough team on the other side, Kinder Morgan's team, and yet we reached a mutual benefits agreement. I want to stress mutual benefits: benefits to the proponent and benefits to our community.... 
 ...the jobs that result [from the expansion] are not one-shot jobs that are there for a year or two and then are gone when the pipeline is concluded. That is a terrible misrepresentation of things. What we've negotiated will be lasting training and lasting jobs and...over the entire life of what I hope will be the new pipe that will come from Alberta to tidewater in British Columbia. 
 Already our community is alive with excitement.... our young people every day come to me and say they want to get trained, they want a job, and they want to say goodbye to welfare.... 
 To us, it means millions of dollars to my band alone, a community of approximately 540 people. I know that it also means a lot to many other first nations who haven't stepped up and spoken out, but who also have agreements that are perhaps comparable to ours. 
 Arthur Bird, of the Paul First Nation, said: 
 We have to support the development of the country and its economics, because the economics of the province affects all of us in one way or another. 
In 2016, when the Trans Mountain expansion was waiting for approval, Mike LeBourdais, the former chief of the Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band, said:
 I want the money from our resources...so that we can pay for our health, so that we can pay for our education, so that we can pay for our elders, so that we can pay to protect our environment, so we can build better pipes, we can build better bridges, we can build better railways. 
The Peters First Nations said: 
 We are concerned that among all of the well-funded and highly publicized opposition to the project, the voice of Indigenous nations that support TMX has been lost.... 
 Peters First Nation has lived with the original pipeline that was built over 50 years ago seated at the base of our mountain and above our homes with no worries or incidents. We believe that the TMX pipeline is the safest way to transport the needed natural resources out of our country for the benefit of all Canadians. 
Kinder Morgan provided more than $13 million to indigenous communities to conduct traditional land or marine use studies and to participate in traditional ecological knowledge studies and other types of community-designed research.
Kinder Morgan did due diligence and consulted with indigenous communities impacted by the expansion and established economic partnerships. Therefore, it is frustrating to see activists outright oppose economic opportunity and security for dozens of indigenous communities that desperately want it.
To put all this in context, the fact is that seven first nations, which are not directly crossed by the expansion, are challenging it in court, which they have a right to do. While they have a right to do it, and a recent motion opposing the pipeline at the AFN made big news, the reality is that it was backed by distant communities in other provinces not directly impacted by the pipeline. Should the hopes and work of 43 indigenous communities be completely destroyed as a result? I do not think so.
While I and my Conservative colleagues believe that pipelines and other energy projects should be paid for, built, maintained, and operated by the private sector, Alberta indigenous groups are saying that they want a stake in the Trans Mountain pipeline now that the government is negotiating its ownership. 
Pipelines and major energy projects should be and are rigorously examined and debated. Environmental stewardship is, and must be, continually improved in energy development. I believe that all Canadians want to protect the environment for future generations.
I am glad that indigenous people who are partners in energy development are speaking out that they have been keepers of the land and water for millennia and that they ensure exceptional environmental management as they pursue economic opportunities. It is mind-boggling that anti-energy activists do not see their own patronizing, demeaning implications when they ignore or trample on the rights of those indigenous communities to self-determination on energy development.
Both the Prime Minister and the left-wing coalition have, of course, been totally complicit in the indigenous anti-energy myth for their own ideological and political reasons. The Conservative-approved northern gateway pipeline was supported by more than 30 indigenous groups with $2 billion in mutual benefit agreements, including training and employment opportunities. 
This Prime Minister had a choice. He could have instructed additional scope and time for consultation, as he did before Trans Mountain was approved and as the Supreme Court said the government could. Instead, he outright vetoed it completely.
Chief Elmer Derrick, of the Gitxsan Nation, said that the Prime Minister had no interest in hearing from first nations who supported northern gateway. He said, “The fact that the Prime Minister chose not to consult with people in northwestern B.C. disappointed us very much.”
Dale Swampy, of the Samson Cree Nation, said:
 [First nations] weren't asked about the financial effect, the lost employment. They are trying to get themselves out of poverty, the welfare system that they are stuck to, and every time they try to do something like that, it's destroyed. 
First nations and Métis communities spent two years and millions in legal fees developing agreements with Enbridge, but all that work and all that hope is now gone because of a purely political decision by this Prime Minister.
Then there is the tanker ban, which was rammed through after little consultation with the indigenous communities most affected by it. There is a $16-billion indigenous-owned pipeline, backed by 35 first nations, that would transport oil from Bruderheim, in Lakeland, to northern British Columbia, but the tanker ban is the obstacle. The Prime Minister never stopped to listen to the bands who oppose it.
Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga'a, in northwestern B.C., said:
 Our government is committed to creating an economic base that meets the requirements of our treaty. We owe it to our people and their futures to preserve the opportunity to have different economic development options available to us. We will not continue to see our way of life eroded and consign our children and grandchildren to life without meaningful opportunities, based on an ill-conceived policy decision. 
The Lax Kw'alaams Band, where the pipeline would end, strongly opposes the ban and the lack of consultation around it and has already launched a constitutional challenge against it. 
Calvin Helin, the chairman of Eagle Spirit Energy, and a member of the Lax Kw'alaams, said:
 We developed a model, particularly for the ocean, that has a higher environmental standard than the federal government is proposing anywhere else in Canada. 
The Prime Minister wants to talk about the importance of consultation with indigenous people. I agree in principle and in practice, but it is cynical and hypocritical of him to ignore the indigenous voices that disagree with his radical anti-energy agenda on a case-by-case basis.
It infuriates me to hear politicians speak of indigenous people as their “most important relationship” and worry publicly about the real crippling poverty and the particular socio-economic challenges and barriers facing indigenous Canadians, while they deliberately use every possible means to block financial opportunities and to undermine all their efforts and work to secure agreements to benefit their communities, elders, youth, and futures.
The text of the NDP motion states, in part (b):
 ...institutions, like the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs which has said with respect to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that “No means no—the project does not have the consent it requires”, which is a principled position conducive to achieving the ends of the UNDRIP. 
However, in a recent interview on CBC, Chief Robert Chamberlin, vice-president of that union, said, “when we have first nations that are definitely in support of this, that needs to be respected without question.” He went on to say, “we have the divide and conquer of colonialism alive and well in Canada.” Many other indigenous community representatives have said that the words the NDP quote in their motion do not speak for them.
While the left tries to push the narrative that indigenous people oppose resource development, it is simply not true, and it is destructive to indigenous people and to all of Canada. It is our job as legislators to make decisions in the broad best interests of all and to carefully weigh the costs and benefits to serve the public good. Obviously, the opinions, ideals, and needs of indigenous communities are vast and diverse. There are pro-development indigenous groups all across Canada, and there are others that are opposed, for their own reasons. All have the right to express their views and to demonstrate peacefully.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his tireless efforts to advance truth and reconciliation in Canada and for this discussion on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I share his commitment to advance truth and reconciliation in Canada. 
It is critical that we examine the motion and its potential implications, as should be the case for all motions here. I support UNDRIP's aspirations, and there are many elements that I and Conservative colleagues support, but as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo pointed out last week, even the current Liberal justice minister said, “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.” 
I do not actually believe that UNDRIP is simplistic. I think it is comprehensive and complicated. My issue is that it is designed as a global, rather than a Canadian, approach to protecting and advancing indigenous rights. Canada is one of the only nations in the world where indigenous rights and treaty rights are entrenched in our Constitution. The crown has a duty to consult indigenous people under section 35, which I assume every member of the House supports. 
However, the parameters in UNDRIP for what constitutes free, prior, and informed consent are not clearly defined. As the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has said, there are various interpretations, and the discrepancy among these interpretations is problematic in and of itself. Some first nations think it is about having a comprehensive consultation process, whereas others have asked for something like veto power when it comes to new energy projects. Obviously, the hundreds of indigenous communities that are owners, partners, and workers in Canada's responsible resource sector should not be at risk of having all their opportunities denied by one individual community that may or may not be involved directly itself. 
All 43 nations along Trans Mountain signed agreements with Kinder Morgan. They had, in other words, consented to the pipeline going through their lands. The NEB ensured exhaustive inclusion of indigenous consultation in the regulatory process, and the Liberals added more in 2016. 
Article 32(2) of UNDRIP states:
 States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 
 I want to draw members' attention to the phrase “any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources.” Trans Mountain did receive approval from all nations it affected, so I am not sure why the expansion is included in this motion explicitly, except because of politics, because, of course, the NDP opposes Trans Mountain and pipelines. 
Therefore, on behalf of all the people in all the communities in Treaty No. 6 in Lakeland, I appreciate having had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the vast majority of my constituents who value energy development and support pipelines.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, who is putting forward that she is speaking on behalf of all in her riding, but the whole purpose and intent of the UNDRIP is to end this colonial regime. Essentially, it says that indigenous people, from this time forward, will have the right to make their own determinations on how they are governed and the development of their lands and resources and the impacts on their people. 
It is a case of setting one first nation against another. I work very closely with the Fort McKay First Nation, the Mikisew Cree First Nation, and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, and as much as, yes, they want the right to participate in any development that impacts their lands and resources, some of which include oil and gas, they are also regularly in court against the Government of Alberta and the federal government, because their rights and interests are not being respected. First and foremost, that is what they see as their responsibility. They have the right, every indigenous community has the right, to self-determine. There is not a quota, nor can my party, the member's party, or the government of the day make that determination on behalf of indigenous peoples.
Shannon Stubbs: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I think we are on the same page on many of her points. I said throughout my speech repeatedly that first nations that want to challenge decisions in court or exercise their rights to free speech or to demonstrate peacefully have that right, just like all Canadians.
 As legislators, it is our responsibility—and certainly mine as the member of Parliament for Lakeland—to stand up for the position of the vast majority of people in my community while supporting the right of those who are not in the majority to express their views. I do that. I did not make the claim for all; I said the “vast majority”, which is true. The member is again putting words in my mouth. Our responsibility here is to make the best decisions in the broad interests of most Canadians. The fact is that Canada is a liberal democracy. The economy is based on the development of natural resources. The majority of indigenous people and communities support energy development and pipelines. The risk is that all of those hopes, aspirations, work, and effort might be destroyed, and I do not want to see that happen.
Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Lakeland very carefully. I learned that she has some indigenous ancestry. As they say, that explains it. 
My question is with respect to the member's experience in her riding and the fact that she is very well informed about the business community, the indigenous community, and the petroleum community. 
What we realize today is that 43 first nations support the Trans Mountain project. However, on the other hand, we also recognize that there are some other first nations in B.C. and elsewhere that do not support that project. Based on her experience, because there are plenty of first nations people in her riding, can she explain to the Canadian people why those who are really concerned support this important project for the future of Canada?
Shannon Stubbs: Madam Speaker, I will not even talk about this from my perspective; rather, I will quote Jim Boucher, the chief of the Fort McKay First Nation, which is not in Lakeland but a couple of hundred kilometres north of our border. He stated:
 When it comes to pipelines and oilsands development, it's clear from our perspective that we need to do more. We're pro-oilsands; if it weren't for the oil my people would be in poverty right now. 
Ellis Ross, an MLA and a former Haisla Nation chief in B.C., stated:
 When you look at the issues facing First Nations in Canada there is no real solution other than development that provides people jobs. There is an anti-resource development sweeping across Canada, and I think that that sentiment actually originates from the U.S. and other countries from around the world. 
It is our job here, as Canadian members of Parliament, to stand up for the best interests of Canada, and it is the case that responsible energy development and pipelines are in the best interests of all Canadians, and indigenous communities too.
Kevin Waugh: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our member for Lakeland for that passionate speech. It is a speech that should be given more than once in the House, that first nations communities from coast to coast want to share in prosperity. She touched on that not only with her community around Lakeland but the entire province of Alberta, and I can share that it is the same in my province of Saskatchewan also.
The question I have for the hon. member is this. Over $400 million is being denied to 43 first nation groups who had originally signed on to the Kinder Morgan deal because the Liberals took the $4.5 billion deal with Kinder Morgan. Those first nations wanted that $400 million to be disbursed in their communities for education, prosperity, and better drinking water. That has been taken away from them. I wonder if the Liberal government even consulted with those 43 first nations that had signed on to the Kinder Morgan deal prior to this development.
Shannon Stubbs: Madam Speaker, all the Liberals had to do was enforce federal jurisdiction and assert the rule of law. Kinder Morgan did not ask for one single cent of taxpayer dollars. All the Liberals had to do was provide certainty that this big project, which had gone through the most rigorous of regulatory standards and received support from every single indigenous community it crossed, could go ahead. However, they did not.
I will mention that the vice-president of the Métis National Council stated “The vast majority of first nations are supporting [the Trans Mountain expansion]. We all look at it from an economic standpoint. It's going to change the opportunity for us that now exists. We have 70%-80% unemployment, and it's going to have a definite economic spin, which will give opportunities for new business to be created.”
The real loss here is that $4.5 billion in Canadian taxpayer dollars were given to Kinder Morgan to build pipelines in the U.S., while Kinder Morgan removed its $7.4-billion private sector investment to build the expansion on which 43 communities were indeed depending for the $400 million worth of mutual benefit agreements attached to that expansion.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will start by indicating that I will be sharing my time with the hon member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
This is a historic debate after a historic debate that occurred five days ago in this place, during which my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who devoted 34 years of his life to this cause, had the House vote in favour of not only an aspirational document but a document that would now guide Parliament in its relationship with first nations peoples in this land. It is a bill that commits Canada to supporting not just in words but in action something that is known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 32(2) of which guarantees:
 ....free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources.... 
The hon. member for Lakeland seems to believe, as do the Liberals across the way, that this means we can choose our friends. We can say, “If you are with us, that's okay; we have your consent. However, if you happen to be a coastal first nation, that's different, because you disagree with us.” 
That is not how constitutionally protected rights and aboriginal title work in this country, and that certainly is not what I voted for when I stood proudly with my Liberal colleagues to vote for our country's implementation of this historic United Nations document, guaranteeing the rights of our indigenous peoples.
I have to say I come with recent information from my riding. The member for Lakeland told us what her constituents think, and I now have very clear information about what the constituents of Victoria think, a community surrounded by oceans on three sides. On Friday, I held a town hall meeting on the Prime Minister's bailout project to buy a leaky 65-year-old pipeline and create another 1,000 kilometres of new pipeline, as well as the tanker project that would effectively almost triple the amount of diluted bitumen travelling on our waters in Victoria.
I thought I would just put a notice out on social media asking people if they would like to come to a town hall meeting on Friday. I did that on Tuesday, and we initially thought we would get 200 people. We got that many people in a couple of hours, and then we got up to 600 people. We had to change the venue twice, and we ended up in what I think is our largest venue aside from the hockey rink, where people told us what they thought.
This was not a rally and it was not intended to be a rally. Indeed, I invited a former deputy minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs from the Government of Canada, Mr. Harry Swain, to speak about the issues from a business perspective and to speak to the way in which crown corporations are established so as to give us a broader understanding of what it means for the government to take over this project—somewhat in desperation, I might add.
It became very clear, despite our efforts to hear both sides, that the people of my community, including many indigenous leaders around the coastal part of British Columbia, are deeply opposed to the risk that the government is prepared to impose upon them without what article 32 requires the government to do—namely, to take into account their perspectives.
I understand that the government wishes to create a crown corporation; at least, that is what the media informs us. I do not know whether that is how it is going to proceed.
I would like to back up. We have a court case in the Federal Court of Appeal that was argued several months ago. We expected to have a judgment from the court in the last little while, and I expect we will get it soon. The temerity of the Liberals to proceed in the way they are before we have the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is deeply disrespectful, and appears to me to be a little inconsistent with their commitment to the rule of law, about which we heard so much this morning. The Federal Court of Appeal sat day after day and heard testimony about whether there was an infringement of aboriginal rights in the process that led to the approval of this project by the National Energy Board; then the government announces it is going to buy the whole thing and triple the capacity and double the pipeline. Does that sound like a commitment to rule of law and respect for indigenous rights?
I had indigenous leaders stand up at my town hall to describe their sense of utter betrayal and disappointment in the government. Madam Speaker, you may have heard in your riding what I heard over and over in mine during the last election, which was that there is no relationship more important to the government than that with Canada's first peoples. I guess that was then and this is now.
The sense of betrayal among first nations is palpable, but I come with real sadness today because what really disturbed me at this town hall, which there were many people from all ages and all walks of life, was the sense of betrayal that young people felt with the government. I am doing my best to tell them not to give up hope.
First of all, the election led to 39% of the people getting 100% of the power. Just 39% of those voting voted for the government—about the same, by the way, as happened when the Harper government was elected and ended up with 100% of the power. Members must have heard in their ridings what I heard many times in mine, that this would be the last election that would be first past the post. Our Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and said that.
Now people came to this town hall to be told that the government had decided not to stand up on climate change and be the climate leader that we heard our Prime Minister so proudly declare himself to be in Paris, but to actually become, essentially, the CEO of a pipeline. I do not recall seeing that in the mandate of any minister, let alone the Prime Minister. I do not recall reading that was going to happen. I guess that is different now.
The point is the sense of betrayal that young people feel, the sense of hopelessness, the existential concern about climate change, which I am sure everyone in this House has had a conversation with a young person about. Now the government is doubling down, essentially, on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
Members may remember that at the G7 meeting about two years ago this month in Japan, our Prime Minister and other leaders said that they would terminate most fossil fuel subsidies. Canada and other G7 nations encouraged countries to join them in eliminating what they referred to “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. The declaration said:
 Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global GHG emissions, we recognize the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combatting climate change. 
It is going to be interesting to see what happens at the G7 meeting coming up, when Canada has to explain why it has decided to double down on fossil fuel subsidies and become the champion of a pipeline. In my riding at least, that is a little hard for young people to understand.
In terms of first nations, what happens if a crown corporation is established? That is not a proponent like Kinder Morgan; that becomes the Government of Canada, does it not? Is the government going to say that since it is a crown corporation, it is at arm's length? How many times have we heard the government stand up and say that it cannot do anything about the telecommunications issue or the postal issue, because those are crown corporations and the government does not really go there?
I wonder if it is going to be just the same from now on, because is the Government of Canada not going to be the primary owner of that pipeline? It seems to me that there is an argument, at least, that it has responsibilities now that are enhanced vis-à-vis the consultation duty.
It was revealed through an access to information request that just before the pipeline was actually approved by cabinet, it appears that a decision had already been made by the government to move full steam ahead, so the consultation that occurred thereafter was nothing but window dressing—at least, that is how it appears, looking back objectively at what happened.
The level of commitment to first nations, despite the heroic stance of the government in approving the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has to be suspect. Will it say it applied in the past? Possibly not. However, its spirit should guide this crown corporation's relationship with coastal first nations people, and they do not approve. They are deeply opposed to this, and, as I said, their sense of betrayal is obvious.
Adam Vaughan: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way and heard him talk about his party's commitment to indigenous people. I thought we shared that. However, I then went back and reviewed the position of the NDP platform in the last campaign on the human rights tribunal ruling where Canada was shown to be short of providing adequate supply of children's services. The party opposite's commitment in the last campaign, if we are talking about how important this case was, was to commit no dollars to resolving it. In fact, there was not one penny committed to health care for indigenous health care in their platform.
What I find really interesting was the commitment around indigenous infrastructure, with $25 million to be spent in the fourth year of the mandate by the party opposite. Twenty-five million dollars does not even build a single water plant. Under that party, boil water alerts would have doubled every year as a result of their underfunding.
The member opposite speaks as if he cares about indigenous rights. Why did he run for a party that put no dollars into indigenous infrastructure, no dollars into indigenous health care, and no dollars to transform the relationship he says his party cares about?
Murray Rankin: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the lecture by my colleague across the way, I do remember that platform, and the Liberals' one as well. Two things stood out for me, as I indicated in my remarks, the first being that it would be the last election with first past the post. The second was that suddenly the relationship with first nations was the most important one among Canadians.
I do not know about members but—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. I just want to remind parliamentary secretaries that they should be even more respectful of the rules of order within the House, and allow the member in this case to speak. If they have other questions, they can stand up to ask them.
The hon. member for Victoria.
Murray Rankin: Madam Speaker, the member referred to boil water advisories. I understand that the shortfall for clean water on first nations reserves is $3.2 billion. The cost of just buying this leaky 65-year old pipeline was $4.5 billion. I do not think we need a lecture on skewed priorities by the member.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague when he says that the government is all talk and no action. It committed to $8.4 billion to eliminate boil water advisories on reserves, and we now have more of them than when we started. That is a total shame. In terms of Liberal priorities, for the low price of $10 million, they could have had 3,000 well-paying jobs, fixed the hole in rural internet service, and opened the border at Sambra in Sarnia, Lambton.
I wonder if the member could elaborate on his feelings about the government's priority with respect to the first nations people?
Murray Rankin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's reference to boil water advisories.
 The other thing the government said that it bought with the pipeline is 15,000 jobs, which of course I heard the Minister of Finance say, and I gasp at that. Robyn Allan, the former CEO of ICBC and an economist for Central Credit Union, has done a thorough analysis this. She says there is no number even approaching that, that it is something that was spitballed by the Bank of Nova Scotia and suddenly became the holy grail for the government. I think the pipeline would mean 90 jobs in my province, going forward, after its construction. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis, I really do not get it. However, there is also another kind of analysis. That is the risk-benefit analysis. Even though I would concede that the risk of a catastrophic spill is small, the consequences of a catastrophic spill are enormous.
I was asked a question at the town hall, and I promised to ask the Prime Minister it. I will do it now. In what way does this project help Canada transition to a low carbon economy?
Kevin Waugh: Madam Speaker, there have been different speeches by members from Lakeland to Victoria, but 43 first nations signed onto Kinder Morgan, which would have given them $400 million.
Could the member for Victoria comment on the graduation rates on reserves right now, particularly as I believe that only 44% of first nation people between the ages of 18 to 24 living on reserves have completed high school? I am just wondering if that $400 million would, in fact, help those in need of actually graduating from high school.
Murray Rankin: Madam Speaker, I concede that my colleague is right that it is very different in Lakeland and Victoria. I have a hard time understanding what the graduation rates on reserves might mean. It might mean that the government could choose to put money into that, but the government, of course, has the ability to choose to put money anywhere it wishes. We do not know.
Ms. Georgina Jolibois (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, NDP):  
[Member spoke in Dene]
[English]
Today, I am happy to speak in support of the motion presented by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and would like to congratulate him on his lifetime achievement award for advancing the rights of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people. It is humbling to sit in the House of Commons next to the hon. member and to work across the hall from him every day.
One of the first things that surprised me when I was elected to represent the people of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was the number of invitations I receive here in Ottawa, as I am sure my colleague can attest to. Our offices receive hundreds of invitations every month for events across the city, such as film screenings, meetings of foreign dignitaries, lunches with community stakeholders, issue briefings with industry professionals, book launches, protests, and more. At virtually every single one of these events, there is one thing that is always said, which is that we recognize that we are on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin people.
Statements like these are important. Recognizing the unsurrendered land of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people is an important step toward our national project of reconciliation. Acknowledging that the lands we live on have their own history reminds all Canadians of our colonial history and the injustices committed against first nations, Métis, and Inuit people.
Just this past week, the Liberal government has proven that the recognition of our people is just words and false promises. When the Liberal government decided to purchase the Kinder Morgan pipeline assets for $4.5 billion, it said it was in the best interests of Canadians to purchase that leaky 65-year-old pipeline. 
This is the same government that feels the need to tell us every day that climate change is real and that we should invest in green technology. This is the same government that tells us that it believes debate is important while pushing for time allocation and presenting omnibus bills. This is from the same government that promised changes to the electoral system, but abandoned that promise. This is coming from the same government that has tirelessly told us that its relationship with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people is the most important relationship it has. This is the same government that believes in a nation-to-nation consultation and insists on denying the rights of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people. This is the same government that will not support my private member's bill to make National Indigenous Peoples Day a statutory holiday.
The government is not protecting the rivers and lakes that first nations, Métis, and Inuit people use every day for hunting, fishing, and trapping. First nation, Métis, and Inuit people believe that water is life, and protecting it from waste, pollution, and damage is crucial. Nothing about the government's purchase of the pipeline would do anything to protect our land or our water. It is awful that the government thinks it can hide this fact. First nation, Métis, and Inuit people strongly believe that water is life and they will protect it at all costs.
We have heard repeatedly from the Minister of Natural Resources that the Liberals have consulted with 43 first nations who have given their consent for this project, which is enough for the Liberals to purchase this pipeline and force this project. If the government did its due diligence, it would find that there are far more first nations, Métis, and Inuit people who are opposed to the pipeline than in support of it.
We could go back and forth all day with lists of who supports and who opposes this pipeline, but I believe that today's motion is more about the principle than resentment.
[Member speaks in Dene]
[English]
I am a Dene woman who comes from northern Saskatchewan, and 75% of the people in my riding identify as first nation or Métis people. Many struggle to find work, affordable housing, access to clean water, or health care that meets their needs. 
The Kinder Morgan pipeline project does not reach my home province, but the decisions the government has made are felt by the people back home. Too often I am told that our community lacks the resources to do a number of projects. There is never enough money for clean water, mental health, youth programs, or health care. Therefore, it comes as a shock to many in the north that there is now enough money for pipelines. People at home have been encouraged by the government's action on UNDRIP and the indigenous languages act, and love to see first nation issues placed at the highest importance in Ottawa, but have seen their hopes for a better future crushed by the news that companies in Texas are more important than they.
 However, not all hope is lost. Folks back home regularly tell me how inspired they are by the resilience of the first nation people in British Columbia. We recognize the importance of the elders guiding us against the pipeline, and we are inspired by their stories of resilience and strength to protect the rights of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people.
 We recognize the bravery of the first nations challenging the government in court. We stand firmly with the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, and the Assembly of First Nations. We raise our voices in support of the protesters on the ground opposing this pipeline. The fight for first nations, Métis, and Inuit rights has been going on for generations, and we will continue that fight in the future.
The concern of folks in northern Saskatchewan is that if the rights of first nations people in B.C. can be violated today, then perhaps it will be those of the people of Saskatchewan next. We hear so much about the duty to consult, the idea of free, prior, and informed consent, and how important it is to the Liberal government, but when it comes down to actually getting that consent, the government has shown that words are more important to it than action.
We hear from companies all the time about how they have done consultations with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people. Often, these consultations are single two-hour meetings held in languages that are not spoken by the locals. We know that when documents are signed, the vast majority of first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples are uninformed and intentionally excluded. 
A true consultation, with a goal of obtaining free, prior, and informed consent, takes time. First nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples are the ultimate judges on whether the consultation process has been meaningful.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortunately the time is up but I am sure the hon. member will have time to add anything during the questions and comments.
The hon. member for Beaches—East York
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Madam Speaker, I find this to be an incredibly difficult aspect of the Trans Mountain expansion approval and now purchase. I have two specific questions.
First, if the Federal Court determines that there is adequate consultation or if the Federal Court sets a path for additional consultation that it deems to be adequate, is that sufficient for the member? 
Second, when we have dozens of indigenous communities that have bought into support for the pipeline, how does she reconcile the opposition with that support?
Georgina Jolibois: Madam Speaker, as I stated in my presentation, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of our elders, the right to live and use the land, rivers, and waters across Canada are very important. The rights of all first nations, Métis, and Inuit people across Canada from coast to coast to coast are very significant. They do not stop. My rights are very important. The rights of the elders who are protesting are very important.
Again, the language the government is using, the language the court is using, are the languages of the foreign entity, of the settler sentiment, not of indigenous people. I would like to ask the government why it has selectively chosen just a few first nations in its consultation process, deliberately excluding the majority.
Kevin Waugh: Madam Speaker, 43 first nations bands have signed onto Trans Mountain along with Kinder Morgan. However, we hear today that they really have not been consulted. For the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, a colleague from Saskatchewan, I will say this. Every group in my province wants to see prosperity in my province for first nations on reserve. There is talk of a pipeline, with first nations groups in my province of Saskatchewan joining together.
 Would the member join with them to help many of these communities get out of poverty? In our province, we have a number of poverty problems on first nations reserves. Many groups in my province are getting together now and are proposing a pipeline of their own to join on with this.
Georgina Jolibois: Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague on my right has asked this very important question. I have one question for the Conservative side. When we were voting on this very important bill just the other day in the House, why were two members of Parliament high-fiving when they voted against the bill? That is very shameful.
 I come from northern Saskatchewan and my home is there. For years and years under the Conservative government, both provincially and federally, as well as under the Liberal government on the other side, we the indigenous people in northern Saskatchewan, the Dene, the Cree, the Michif, the Métis and everyone else, have been fighting so hard to be included in the prosperity about which he speaks. How come for all these years, the north has never been included in the discussions, everything around prosperity, and everything else?
Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): Madam Speaker, my colleague from northern Saskatchewan always provides such a strong voice for indigenous peoples in this place. What is her view on what a true nation-to-nation relationship is and how that would relate to today's debate?
Georgina Jolibois:  
[Member spoke in Dene] 
[English]
Madam Speaker, the way for nation to nation as indigenous people, Cree, Dene, Michif, Inuit from coast to coast to coast is to include the elders, the youth, the families in a setting where we have an opportunity to voice our concerns and our matters.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Before resuming debate, I want to remind the member that I will unfortunately have to interrupt him for question period.
The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. 
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
 In 2016, Canada announced its full support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification, with a commitment to its full and effective implementation.
Sheila Malcolmson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe I was next in the speaking order.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): First, the member did not rise to speak. Second, a Liberal is next on the roster. Since nobody stood to speak on that side, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge has the right to debate now.
The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
Dan Ruimy: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada believes indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that affect their rights and that indigenous governments' laws and jurisdictions must be respected. That is why, as part of the Government of Canada's commitment to a renewed relationship with first nations, Inuit, and Métis nations, Canada will aim to secure free, prior, and informed consent when it proposes to take actions that impact the rights of indigenous peoples. This principle builds on, but goes beyond, the legal duty to consult. 
While our government recently supported Bill C-262 as a good next step toward renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, a single legislative approach to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples cannot achieve our twofold goal of transformed indigenous-crown relations and improved standards of living in indigenous communities. 
In order to fully adopt and implement the declaration and meet the promise of section 35 of our Constitution, more must be done. To that end, on February 14, the Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would ensure that a rights-based approach would be the foundation of all crown-indigenous relations. We are doing this by developing a full partnership with first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, a new recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework. While the contents are being determined through engagement, it is anticipated that the framework will include legislative and policy changes needed to operationalize the recognition and implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.
The Speaker: Order, please. I apologize to the member for interrupting, but we have to proceed to statements by members. The member will have 17 minutes and 40 seconds remaining in his speech when the House returns to this topic.

Statements By Members
Frederick EngelbrechtMr. Bob Bratina (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the last survivors of the Dieppe raid of World War II, my dear friend Frederick Engelbrecht, has died.
Fred was 22 years old when the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry hit the beach in France on August 19, 1942. By that night, 916 soldiers were dead, including 197 of his regimental comrades. Fred was captured after firing at the enemy while the last survivors were being evacuated. 
Fred's granddaughters Amanda and Shari moved us all to tears, talking especially about not hating those he fought and who took him prisoner but rather emphasizing the goodness that people and life had to offer.
For 34 years after his return, Fred served with the Hamilton fire department. Chief Cunliffe spoke of his outstanding qualities as a professional firefighter.
Fred was a soldier, fireman, husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, friend. May Fred rest in peace. We will remember him. 
Wedding AnniversaryMrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for me. It is my wedding anniversary. On this occasion, I would like to take an opportunity to honour my husband Adam.
Adam truly understands what it takes to be a supportive partner. He is a great father and role model for our two children. Through his actions, he is teaching them how a man can truly be a feminist. Currently he has put his career on hold to be there for our children 24/7.
Not only is he a source of strength and stability in our home, Adam also supports me in this role and accompanies me to events throughout the riding.
I would like to thank Adam for being a true feminist, by encouraging me, helping me, believing in me, and telling me never to give up. Most important, I would like to thank him for setting a high standard for our children.
Squadron 687 Richelieu LavalMrs. Eva Nassif (Vimy, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 12, I had the honour of attending Squadron 687 Richelieu Laval's 60th annual ceremony. Cadet programs give children and teens wonderful opportunities to participate in activities and develop all kinds of important skills and attitudes, individually or as part of a team. These activities help build discipline, teach cadets to work with others, and help them forge long-lasting friendships.
I want to thank everyone involved with Squadron 687 Richelieu Laval for everything they have done for our community and our children and for everything they continue to do. I particularly want to thank Lena Assaf, a long-time volunteer, for her dedication to supporting the cadets throughout the program.
Congratuations on another successful annual ceremony. I wish you many more to come.
Oceans Day SundaySheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, to celebrate oceans and defend the coast, Oceans Day Sunday on my home island of Gabriola drew hundreds, and on Friday, Nanaimo celebrates too. We are all in this together. Healthy oceans keep us healthy.
Clean coastal waters generate tens of thousands of B.C. jobs and billions in economic activity, from tourism to film to fisheries.
However, the ocean is taking the brunt of climate change and oil tanker spills from the Prime Minister's pipeline risk everything. So B.C. people are taking action.
 Thirty-six thousand businesses just voted for the Liberals to include recycling solutions in their abandoned vessel bill. New Democrats built plans to end marine plastic pollution and move open-net salmon farms on land. Coastal folks want endangered orcas protected and oil spill response tightened. We are going to stop freighters' free parking in the Salish Sea.
We owe our oceans everything. It is far past time to honour them with action.
Deceased Former ParliamentariansMr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a ceremony in honour of deceased former parliamentarians was held today.
Today, my mother Jeannine, sister Lynne, and I attended a ceremony to pay tribute to these men and women who made a difference. We commemorated the memory of my late father Gaetan Serre, former MP for Nickel Belt, former colleagues Arnorld Chan, Gord Brown, and many others.
Although the pain from a loss runs deep, I hope all those who suffered the loss of loved ones can find peace in their accomplishments. They were passionate and dedicated people.
I am proud of my father's legacy, a very devoted advocate for social justice.
Today I invite my colleagues to join the families in honouring the memory of all former parliamentarians who passed away in the last year. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.
Beauport—LimoilouMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the parliamentary calendar, we will in all likelihood be back in our respective ridings within three or four weeks' time.
Personally, I plan to get out and meet with my constituents non-stop for two and a half months, whether in my constituency office or by doing my summer door-knocking, two or three days a week, between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. I will also visit community organizations and attend public events in various neighbourhoods.
I am also organizing two key events. The first event will be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on July 1 to celebrate Canada Day at the Maison Girardin, a historic residence on Royale Avenue, where there will be popcorn, hotdogs, and military music provided by the Voltigeurs.
The second event will be my Beauport—Limoilou summer party. It will be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 18 at the Domaine de Maizerets. Complimentary hotdogs and corn on the cob from Île d'Orléans will be served. Over 3,000 people attended last year. I hope to see at least 4,000 people this year. Come one, come all, to the Domaine de Maizerets on August 18.
Portugal Heritage MonthMr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in June we celebrate Portugal Heritage Month and the great contributions made by Canadians of Portuguese descent. The Luso community in Canada numbers over half a million members, and we thank them for their contributions in shaping communities from coast to coast to coast.
Portugual Day, June 10, is commemorated both in Portugal and around the world, by Portuguese honouring the 16th century poet, Luís Vaz de Camões, whose prose captured Portugal's age of discovery.
Next week, we will host our third annual Portugal Day on the Hill. It is a special day of pride for me, both as a Portuguese immigrant who came to Canada at the age of two with my family, and as the MP for Mississauga East—Cooksville and resident of Mississauga, a city which over 20,000 Portuguese Canadians call home.
It was an honour for the community to have Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa's official visit to Canada, to deepen our people to people—
Markham ThunderMs. Mary Ng (Markham—Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Markham Thunder fan and a proud supporter of women's hockey in Canada.
This year, the Markham Thunder women's hockey team won the Clarkson Cup.
It is my honour, and Minister Jane Philpott's honour, to invite them to Ottawa today to meet the Prime Minister.
The Speaker: The hon. member is not to use the names of members in the House.
Mary Ng: It is my honour and that of Jane Philpott—
The Speaker: I must again remind the member not to use names of members. Perhaps she could adjust her statement as she finishes it to ensure that no further names are included.
Mary Ng: It is my honour to invite them to Ottawa today to meet the Prime Minister.
In 2007, the Canadian Women's Hockey League was created to be a space for women at the highest level of the sport to compete, as well as a commitment to the future of women's hockey in our country.
 This team represents the best of women's hockey: the spirit, the tenacity, and the heart to never give up on one's dreams, no matter who says someone is too big or is just a girl. 
I am proud to welcome the Clarkson Cup champions to our nation's capital.
74th Anniversary of D-DayHon. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday, June 6th, marks the 74th anniversary of D-Day, the allied invasion of Normandy, commencing the liberation of Europe during World War II. Canada played a large role in the planning and execution of Operation Overlord. Canadian soldiers were tasked with capturing Juno Beach. 
Those who were liberated appreciated the sacrifices that so many Canadians made. An example is located right on Juno Beach. The first building in Europe liberated during the invasion of Normandy overlooks the beach on which hundreds of Canadians died. The iconic house, seen in so many photos of D-Day, is known as “Maison des Canadiens”. 
 Today the house is owned by the family of Hervé Hoffer. After meeting visiting Canadian veterans in 1984, Hoffer decided to honour the sacrifices made by decorating his house with photographs, flags, and other artifacts. Visitors are welcomed inside the house with gratitude and hospitality. Though Hoffer died in January 2017, we must ensure that the house, one of the most important buildings in Canadian military history, remains open to those who wish to visit and remember the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers 74 years ago. 
National Indigenous History MonthMr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite members of the House, and all Canadians, to join me in celebrating National Indigenous History Month, beginning June 1st. This is a great opportunity to learn about the culture, traditions, and contributions of first nations, Inuit, and Métis in Canada. 
National Indigenous History Month marks a time to recognize the rich heritage and diversity of indigenous peoples, and promote respect, understanding, and appreciation. On June 21, people should be sure to share in the celebration of National Indigenous Peoples Day by participating in an event held in their area. I encourage everyone to take part in the variety of unique events that will be taking place all month long.
Mr. Speaker, mahsi cho.
Italian Heritage MonthMr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, June is Italian Heritage Month, an opportunity to celebrate the artistic, culinary, cultural, and musical contributions of our fellow citizens of Italian descent.
This recognition of our deep connection with our roots and our traditions reflects the pride and accomplishments of a strong, united community. The harmonious fusion of cultures where pasta and pizza are standard fare in Canadian homes and poutine and smoked meat are a must in Italian weddings is a testament to the beauty of our diversity. 
In that spirit, members from all parties will gather tomorrow for the third annual Canada Italy Day on the Hill to celebrate all things Italian.
[Member spoke in Italian as follows:]
 Viva l'Italia e grazie Canada per la vostra amicizia and [that's] amore. 
M.G. L'Heureux FarmHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, World Milk Day is a UN initiative celebrated in early July recognizing the benefits of this white gold.
Like farms owned by many Canadian families, the M. G. L'Heureux farm in Saint-Henri, Bellechasse, proudly produces high-quality milk. The farm has been family-owned for 90 years, and since 1986 has been run by brothers Michel and Gilles and their spouses Raymonde and Nancy. The farm has experienced such growth that it is now the top dairy operation in eastern Quebec.
In addition to managing a herd of 580 dairy cows producing 8 million tonnes of milk a year, the family cultivates 2,700 acres of forage and cereal crops. This farm is known not only for its volume of production and use of advanced technology, but also for its Quebec and Latin American workers, as well as the successful efforts to transition ownership to the next generation.
The L'Heureux family was recently awarded the Grande Distinction Desjardins. On this World Milk Day, we thank and congratulate this family for their passion and commitment to sustainable prosperity.
Pride SeasonMr. Randy Boissonnault (Edmonton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, it is a singular honour to rise in the House today to celebrate the beginning of pride season. 
Whether we live in Steinbach, Gaspé, Kelowna, St. John's, Jasper, Kincardine, Regina, Moncton, or Yellowknife, we are all called to be true to ourselves and to love whomever we want to love. While celebrating, we must remain vigilant, continue to make progress, and fight homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia.
For trans persons, homeless queer youth, re-closeted seniors, queer people of colour, and for two-spirit Canadians, LGBTQ2 rights are human rights. Human rights have no borders and they apply to all people. 
This summer, the pride flag calls upon us to not rest until we have served all the peoples. Let us all, in this place, work together so that everyone in Canada and around the world can say, “I am free to be me; je suis libre d'être moi -même.”
Thomas “Dubby” DuvallMr. Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 5th, I had the honour of taking part in a ceremony marking the induction of an incredible man into the Cambridge Sports Hall of Fame, Thomas J. “Dubby” Duvall. Not only was Dubby a well-known athlete, coach, and league organizer, he was also my great uncle.
The stories of Dubby's contribution to sports in Cambridge are legendary. He was a hockey player, a baseball player, and a professional wrestler. He was a respected hockey coach, with one of his teams capturing the Ontario Hockey Association championship.
Dubby also contributed endless hours helping to organize sports in Cambridge and across Ontario. From 1954 to 1956, he served as president of the Ontario Rural Softball Association and the Ontario rural hockey association, the only person in Ontario to hold both offices at the same time.
One of 18 children born in Thorold, Ontario, Dubby died in 1973, much too young, at the age of 67. It was a great privilege to join Dubby's son and my cousin George, and his wife Susan, to pay tribute to a man who was truly one of a kind and a great Canadian.
JusticeMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with their criminal justice reforms, the Liberals are making a bad situation worse. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals have created the option to proceed with a large number of violent offences by way of summary conviction rather than indictable offence. This means that violent criminals may receive no more than six months in jail or a fine for their crimes. These are six months for terrorist activities, obstructing justice, assault with a weapon, forced marriage, abduction, advocating genocide, participation in a criminal organization, or trafficking, just to name a few. These are serious offences. Putting these criminals back on the streets makes things even worse, and makes less sense.
This is another hurdle that the police have to protecting our streets, another barrier for parents protecting their children, another barrier to removing criminals and organized crime from our communities, and another example of the Liberals being soft on criminals and ignoring victims. I call on the government to admit its error and withdraw this bill.